|
On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about.
If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines"
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
On March 13 2015 05:35 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:10 CAG Husker wrote:On March 13 2015 05:07 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 05:05 CAG Husker wrote:On March 13 2015 04:26 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 pure.Wasted wrote:
In g5, Life takes a huge engagement at his fourth. At the start of this engagement, Inno is maxed and banking over 1k minerals. Cut to the end of the fight, he's still sitting at 1k minerals and he's down like 30 supply despite the fight looking more or less even. If it were any other player, I'd just assume they failed to macro and be satisfied with that, but this is Innovation, forgetting to build Marines while he's attacking with Marines isn't really a thing that happens to him.
Kaelaris even pointed this out after the fight was over and he looked at the supply and he was like "I'll have to rewatch that game, something weird happened."
If anyone's figured it out or rewatches the series and has a theory, please reply here or PM me, I'm super curious. I rewatched the vod, he never stopped building marines during the fight, I would assume Life managed to resupply faster with a lot of larva but I'm not sure. Inno did not have all his reinforcements aggressively rallied so he lost at the fourth. Then he lost his Natural, but what the commentators didn't notice is that Life got supply blocked (I believe Inno took out three to four Overlords in the middle of the map while retreating) and this allowed Inno to catch up in supply. True enough, but after the first big fight, he was down 30 supply despite constant reproduction in a fight that looked like an even trade. Inno's supply constantly trended downwards while Life's was more stable I guess because of impeccable Inject timings? So what, Inno didn't have enough Barracks? It's undeniable that he was floating over 900 minerals for a while during that engagement, so he might have been building units the whole time but maybe his infrastructure wasn't set up or something? I've never seen the guy float that much cash and it really puzzled me, especially because his supply was plummeting.
He was building like 12 to 14 marines and 2-3 marauders at a time as well as 3 mines, production was pretty much fine.
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines"
Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. There's a clear system in place that's absolutely fair to players. You as the viewer might not like it, but treating players fairly should be the main priority for any event.
|
On March 13 2015 05:35 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:10 CAG Husker wrote:On March 13 2015 05:07 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 05:05 CAG Husker wrote:On March 13 2015 04:26 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 04:19 pure.Wasted wrote:
In g5, Life takes a huge engagement at his fourth. At the start of this engagement, Inno is maxed and banking over 1k minerals. Cut to the end of the fight, he's still sitting at 1k minerals and he's down like 30 supply despite the fight looking more or less even. If it were any other player, I'd just assume they failed to macro and be satisfied with that, but this is Innovation, forgetting to build Marines while he's attacking with Marines isn't really a thing that happens to him.
Kaelaris even pointed this out after the fight was over and he looked at the supply and he was like "I'll have to rewatch that game, something weird happened."
If anyone's figured it out or rewatches the series and has a theory, please reply here or PM me, I'm super curious. I rewatched the vod, he never stopped building marines during the fight, I would assume Life managed to resupply faster with a lot of larva but I'm not sure. Inno did not have all his reinforcements aggressively rallied so he lost at the fourth. Then he lost his Natural, but what the commentators didn't notice is that Life got supply blocked (I believe Inno took out three to four Overlords in the middle of the map while retreating) and this allowed Inno to catch up in supply. True enough, but after the first big fight, he was down 30 supply despite constant reproduction in a fight that looked like an even trade. Inno's supply constantly trended downwards while Life's was more stable I guess because of impeccable Inject timings? So what, Inno didn't have enough Barracks? It's undeniable that he was floating over 900 minerals for a while during that engagement, so he might have been building units the whole time but maybe his infrastructure wasn't set up or something? I've never seen the guy float that much cash and it really puzzled me, especially because his supply was plummeting.
I guess it was just a resupply timing thing.
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
As a fan the thing I like most is when the odds are stacked against the player I like. But I'm pretty certain I'm not a normal fan.
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life.
And he beat Life. It's not about INnoVation being at a disadvantage, it's about Life as an IEM winner being disadvantaged by the seeding <.<.
|
On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. There's a clear system in place that's absolutely fair to players. You as the viewer might not like it, but treating players fairly should be the main priority for any event.
You realize that Life is the one who lost?
|
On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life.
What is this infatuation with randomization? Playoffs and championship brackets in any traditional sport (and ALMOST every exports event) intentionally rank the players/teams participating and reward them for their skill and/or recent performance by placing them against the lowest seeds. That is how seeding is done everywhere, and it is how it should be done. It's not fucking rigging. Rolling a die to determine who plays who is moronic. My local smash weeklies are seeded based on past results, how can a 100k IEM world championship not come up with something other than "Well I hope we don't fuck over the best players. Roll that sucker!"
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On March 13 2015 05:44 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. There's a clear system in place that's absolutely fair to players. You as the viewer might not like it, but treating players fairly should be the main priority for any event. You realize that Life is the one who lost?
You're not getting the point.
|
On March 13 2015 05:46 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:44 The_Red_Viper wrote:On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. There's a clear system in place that's absolutely fair to players. You as the viewer might not like it, but treating players fairly should be the main priority for any event. You realize that Life is the one who lost? You're not getting the point.
Man it sure sucks that Germany, Netherlands, Brazil, and Argentina were in the same world cup group! Oh well luck of the draw I guess!
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On March 13 2015 05:45 Yorkie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. What is this infatuation with randomization? Playoffs and championship brackets in any traditional sport (and ALMOST every exports event) intentionally rank the players/teams participating and reward them for their skill and/or recent performance by placing them against the lowest seeds. That is how seeding is done everywhere, and it is how it should be done. It's not fucking rigging. Rolling a die to determine who plays who is moronic. My local smash weeklies are seeded based on past results, how can a 100k IEM world championship not come up with something other than "Well I hope we don't fuck over the best players. Roll that sucker!"
You realize that the bracket wasn't completely randomly drawn? From what I gather there were three player pools.
- IEM champions
- Runners-up
- Online qualified players
Champions got the first and last slot in their bracket, runners up got the middle spots. Within each pool, players were treated exactly equally. That means that they have to draw which IEM champion gets which reserved slot. Runners-up, same thing. Then each of them drew a player that qualified online so that those were again treated equally. It's incredibly fair to players.
The system DOES reward players for their past IEM performances over the span of the season.
|
On March 13 2015 05:45 Yorkie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. What is this infatuation with randomization? Playoffs and championship brackets in any traditional sport (and ALMOST every exports event) intentionally rank the players/teams participating and reward them for their skill and/or recent performance by placing them against the lowest seeds. That is how seeding is done everywhere, and it is how it should be done. It's not fucking rigging. Rolling a die to determine who plays who is moronic. My local smash weeklies are seeded based on past results, how can a 100k IEM world championship not come up with something other than "Well I hope we don't fuck over the best players. Roll that sucker!"
Welcome to Starcraft 2, ie Professional Rock-Paper-Scissors
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
On March 13 2015 05:49 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:45 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. What is this infatuation with randomization? Playoffs and championship brackets in any traditional sport (and ALMOST every exports event) intentionally rank the players/teams participating and reward them for their skill and/or recent performance by placing them against the lowest seeds. That is how seeding is done everywhere, and it is how it should be done. It's not fucking rigging. Rolling a die to determine who plays who is moronic. My local smash weeklies are seeded based on past results, how can a 100k IEM world championship not come up with something other than "Well I hope we don't fuck over the best players. Roll that sucker!" You realize that the bracket wasn't completely randomly drawn? From what I gather there were three player pools. - IEM champions - Runners-up - Online qualified players Within each pool, players were treated exactly equally. Champions got the first and last slot in their bracket, runners up got the middle spots. Then each of them drew a player that qualified online. The system DOES reward players for their past IEM performances over the span of the season.
It's actually 4 pools because Dark and Cure were independent from the other online qualified guys by being 3rd place in their regional qualifiers, which auto-seeds them as 15 and 16. And no, looking at who the 4 IEM champs got to play in round 1, they weren't really rewarded. 2/4 are already out. But that's bad luck, I guess?
|
On March 13 2015 05:49 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:45 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. What is this infatuation with randomization? Playoffs and championship brackets in any traditional sport (and ALMOST every exports event) intentionally rank the players/teams participating and reward them for their skill and/or recent performance by placing them against the lowest seeds. That is how seeding is done everywhere, and it is how it should be done. It's not fucking rigging. Rolling a die to determine who plays who is moronic. My local smash weeklies are seeded based on past results, how can a 100k IEM world championship not come up with something other than "Well I hope we don't fuck over the best players. Roll that sucker!" You realize that the bracket wasn't completely randomly drawn? From what I gather there were three player pools. - IEM champions - Runners-up - Online qualified players Within each pool, players were treated exactly equally. Champions got the first and last slot in their bracket, runners up got the middle spots. Then each of them drew a player that qualified online. The system DOES reward players for their past IEM performances over the span of the season.
Not any more than it does runner ups. If the qualifier players were all lumped into one 8 man group then winners had no advantage whatsoever over runner ups. It showed as the winners got overall more difficult opponents by luck of the draw.
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On March 13 2015 05:51 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:49 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:45 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. What is this infatuation with randomization? Playoffs and championship brackets in any traditional sport (and ALMOST every exports event) intentionally rank the players/teams participating and reward them for their skill and/or recent performance by placing them against the lowest seeds. That is how seeding is done everywhere, and it is how it should be done. It's not fucking rigging. Rolling a die to determine who plays who is moronic. My local smash weeklies are seeded based on past results, how can a 100k IEM world championship not come up with something other than "Well I hope we don't fuck over the best players. Roll that sucker!" You realize that the bracket wasn't completely randomly drawn? From what I gather there were three player pools. - IEM champions - Runners-up - Online qualified players Within each pool, players were treated exactly equally. Champions got the first and last slot in their bracket, runners up got the middle spots. Then each of them drew a player that qualified online. The system DOES reward players for their past IEM performances over the span of the season. It's actually 4 pools because Dark and Cure were independent from the other online qualified guys by being 3rd place in their regional qualifiers, which auto-seeds them as 15 and 16. And no, looking at who the 4 IEM champs got to play in round 1, they weren't really rewarded. 2/4 are already out. But that's bad luck, I guess?
So IEM champions losing to other amazing players is the draw's fault now? Sorry that this tournament is so damn stacked that first round opponents can threaten tournament champions.
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
On March 13 2015 05:54 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:51 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 05:49 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:45 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. What is this infatuation with randomization? Playoffs and championship brackets in any traditional sport (and ALMOST every exports event) intentionally rank the players/teams participating and reward them for their skill and/or recent performance by placing them against the lowest seeds. That is how seeding is done everywhere, and it is how it should be done. It's not fucking rigging. Rolling a die to determine who plays who is moronic. My local smash weeklies are seeded based on past results, how can a 100k IEM world championship not come up with something other than "Well I hope we don't fuck over the best players. Roll that sucker!" You realize that the bracket wasn't completely randomly drawn? From what I gather there were three player pools. - IEM champions - Runners-up - Online qualified players Within each pool, players were treated exactly equally. Champions got the first and last slot in their bracket, runners up got the middle spots. Then each of them drew a player that qualified online. The system DOES reward players for their past IEM performances over the span of the season. It's actually 4 pools because Dark and Cure were independent from the other online qualified guys by being 3rd place in their regional qualifiers, which auto-seeds them as 15 and 16. And no, looking at who the 4 IEM champs got to play in round 1, they weren't really rewarded. 2/4 are already out. But that's bad luck, I guess? So IEM champions losing to other amazing players is the draw's fault now? Sorry that this tournament is so damn stacked that first round opponents can threaten tournament champions.
No reason to be so offended. Yes, it's the draw's fault that the IEM champions got on average harder opponents than their runner-ups, but it was bad luck. There was no sarcasm in that so I don't know why you react like such an ass. Of course strong opponents are unavoidable with this lineup of great players, but some matches are just unfortunate.
|
On March 13 2015 05:46 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:44 The_Red_Viper wrote:On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. There's a clear system in place that's absolutely fair to players. You as the viewer might not like it, but treating players fairly should be the main priority for any event. You realize that Life is the one who lost? You're not getting the point.
The point is that you have no point.
Sure, if we only look at the system (here: an IEM winner plays vs someone who qualified online) it might seem ok.
But if you take a moment and think about it for 5 minutes and you realize that you have two of the best players play in the first round and Life as IEM winner getting fucked by that (lol at that "fair seeding"), you will realize that it isnt really a good system.
It is the IEM championship and i get that they wanna have winners and runner ups there, but why did they choose to have qualifiers at all then? Cause they obviously know that tournaments held months in the past maybe aren't the best indicator of current skill (and thus it is better to have at least 8 "hot players" there now, which in itself isn't really guaranteed due to online randomness)
So why don't they have IEM points you get for placing high at every IEM tournament? You still can get all the winners and runner ups cause it kinda makes sense to do so, but then you could seed by using IEM points.
I think that would be more logical if you use the excuse of it being the IEM championship.
If you don't do that and you hold qualifiers cause you apparently wanna have the best current players there (as well?) why not seed by current skill?
Sry but this whole system isn't cohesive and certainly not fair one way or another.
Also you arguing with Innovation instead of Life makes little sense considering what happened today, even though it still is the same concept.
|
On March 13 2015 05:57 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:54 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:51 Elentos wrote:On March 13 2015 05:49 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:45 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. What is this infatuation with randomization? Playoffs and championship brackets in any traditional sport (and ALMOST every exports event) intentionally rank the players/teams participating and reward them for their skill and/or recent performance by placing them against the lowest seeds. That is how seeding is done everywhere, and it is how it should be done. It's not fucking rigging. Rolling a die to determine who plays who is moronic. My local smash weeklies are seeded based on past results, how can a 100k IEM world championship not come up with something other than "Well I hope we don't fuck over the best players. Roll that sucker!" You realize that the bracket wasn't completely randomly drawn? From what I gather there were three player pools. - IEM champions - Runners-up - Online qualified players Within each pool, players were treated exactly equally. Champions got the first and last slot in their bracket, runners up got the middle spots. Then each of them drew a player that qualified online. The system DOES reward players for their past IEM performances over the span of the season. It's actually 4 pools because Dark and Cure were independent from the other online qualified guys by being 3rd place in their regional qualifiers, which auto-seeds them as 15 and 16. And no, looking at who the 4 IEM champs got to play in round 1, they weren't really rewarded. 2/4 are already out. But that's bad luck, I guess? So IEM champions losing to other amazing players is the draw's fault now? Sorry that this tournament is so damn stacked that first round opponents can threaten tournament champions. No reason to be so offended. Yes, it's the draw's fault that the IEM champions got on average harder opponents than their runner-ups, but it was bad luck. There was no sarcasm in that so I don't know why you react like such an ass.
yeah you'd think he'd be happy that the guy who qualified by losing to Flash 6 months ago got Hydra.
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On March 13 2015 05:58 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 05:46 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:44 The_Red_Viper wrote:On March 13 2015 05:39 DarkLordOlli wrote:On March 13 2015 05:35 Yorkie wrote:On March 13 2015 05:32 BisuDagger wrote:
Why is anyone complaining about seeding? These are the best players in the world and it shouldn't matter what round they meet certain players. The current bracket creates diverse storylines where we have a chance at not seeing the same generic finalists. I'm excited to see all of these players play any one in this player pool. But go ahead, continue complaining about an extremely exciting tournament we should only be hyped about. If there was no WCS points or money on the line or if you only care about the spectator experience and not about the players then absolutely I would agree. I prefer to not see the best/highest achieving players be punished by the system and have them lose out on hundreds of WCS points and thousands of dollars because of poor tournament organizing. There's more at stake than "diverse storylines" Yeah, you'd rather have players get fucked over by tournaments rigging brackets to avoid two tournament favorites meeting in the first round. If Innovation didn't want to meet Life in the first round, he should have placed first or second at a previous IEM. He didn't, so he qualified online. That throws him in the same pool as all the other online qualifiers. And he ABSOLUTELY shouldn't be treated differently than any of them. He drew Life. There's a clear system in place that's absolutely fair to players. You as the viewer might not like it, but treating players fairly should be the main priority for any event. You realize that Life is the one who lost? You're not getting the point. The point is that you have no point. Sure, if we only look at the system (here: an IEM winner plays vs someone who qualified online) it might seem ok. But if you take a moment and think about it for 5 minutes and you realize that you have two of the best players play in the first round and Life as IEM winner getting fucked by that (lol at that "fair seeding"). It is the IEM championship and i get that they wanna have winners and runner ups there, but why did they choose to have qualifiers at all then? Cause they obviously know that tournaments held months in the past maybe aren't the best indicator of current skill (and thus it is better to have at least 8 "hot players" there now, which in itself isn't really guaranteed due to online randomness) So why don't they have IEM points you get for placing high at every IEM tournament? You still can get all the winners and runner ups cause it kinda makes sense to do so, but then you could seed by using IEM points. I think that would be more logical if you use the excuse of it being the IEM championship. If you don't do that and you hold qualifiers cause you apparently wanna have the best current players there (as well?) why not seed by current skill? Sry but this whole system isn't cohesive and certainly not fair one way or another. Also you arguing with Innovation instead of Life makes little sense considering what happened today, even though it still is the same concept.
Because "current skill" isn't a measurable variable. The second you start trying, you will fuck over players.
Did you regard Life as the best player in the world coming into Blizzcon? You probably didn't. And yet he showed up there and he was.
I'm arguing about Innovation because his seeding is the only one in question here. Life was always going to be seeded into either the first or last slot of one bracket. This was decided through a draw, so that all IEM champions are equal. That's a good thing (again, because "tournament difficulty" can't be measured). Innovation then was treated the same as all the other players that qualified through the online qualifiers, except Dark and Cure. Again, good thing, qualifier difficulty can't be measured, etc.
This system is absolutely fair towards players. Innovation could have drawn anybody else as well and they'd have been punished by that draw, simply because he's good. You can't arbitrarily decide who's fine to have Innovation play against. That isn't fair.
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
The fundamental problem with seeding, all seeding is that there needs to be a global ranking system. But there isn't one, the closest they have is WCS and for multiple reasons that should be self evident it not very good.
IEM just did the best they could with the system they had.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
