EPTOfficial State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 207
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Takeodesu
United States21 Posts
| ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
iNcontroL vs drewbie (Game 3): http://www.sc2replayed.com/replays/102796-1v1-terran-protoss-metalopolis | ||
|
SmoKim
Denmark10301 Posts
On November 10 2010 16:34 itmeJP wrote: Here ya go. Its 2h25m long or something. SotG - 11.9.10 // FileFront and only 65mb, awesome thx JP! | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
There you go, IdrA-haters, he doesn't always blame other people or imbalance.  | ||
|
hellsan631
United States695 Posts
| ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
On November 10 2010 17:19 dcemuser wrote: IdrA: "And I lost because I played bad." There you go, IdrA-haters, he doesn't always blame other people or imbalance. He was obviously whining and saying that IdrA needs to be buffed. | ||
|
happyness
United States2400 Posts
On November 10 2010 16:34 itmeJP wrote: Here ya go. Its 2h25m long or something. SotG - 11.9.10 // FileFront Thanks JP! I'm sure it will be good this week!!!  | ||
|
Fryght
Netherlands254 Posts
| ||
|
Salvarias
Denmark231 Posts
| ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
You're right, it improves the accuracy slightly. However, it also just straight out SUCKS for the players it happens to (as you know), so it is heavily, heavily luck-based. | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On November 10 2010 17:48 Salvarias wrote: incontrol talked about some interviews his girlfriend had made ? or was it off her, anyways he said they should be on TL ? anyone know where ? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=167894 | ||
|
GriNn
United States243 Posts
| ||
|
trancey
United States430 Posts
1. Liquid`Jinro 2. FnaticTTOne 3. Pain.User 4. Liquid`Tyler 5. Liquid`TLO 6. EG.Machine 7. Liquid`Ret 8. ROOT.Drewbie 9. LiquidHuK 10. ROOT KiwiKaki 11. Dignitas SeleCT 12. ROOT SLusH 13. ROOTqxc 14. EGiNka 15. EGiNcontroL 16. aTn Socke | ||
|
trancey
United States430 Posts
| ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
Strictly, if you treat every match as a coin-flip, Day9 is correct that in order for the "best" player to win guaranteed you would have to play Best of Infinity at every stage. However, NonY's argument actually holds, unless you absolutely refuse to grant that a tournament is attempting to create some kind of ranking list. If you don't, it is demonstrably true that if, say, you run a thousand single-elim tournaments and a thousand double-elim tournaments with the same players, and then rank the players based on their scores from each set of tournaments on a separate ranking, the double-elim set will (in all likelihood, but not guaranteed) result in a ranking list that looks more like the "true" ranking list (which is unknown). I haven't thought about it enough to say for sure that the extended series rule will similarly outperform a double-elim tournament without the rule on average, but it seems intuitively like it would, which is (I think) the purpose. I might attempt a proper proof of this tommorow, but there you go. | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On November 10 2010 17:59 kzn wrote: To math nerd it out: Strictly, if you treat every match as a coin-flip, Day9 is correct that in order for the "best" player to win guaranteed you would have to play Best of Infinity at every stage. However, NonY's argument actually holds, unless you absolutely refuse to grant that a tournament is attempting to create some kind of ranking list. If you don't, it is demonstrably true that if, say, you run a thousand single-elim tournaments and a thousand double-elim tournaments with the same players, and then rank the players based on their scores from each set of tournaments on a separate ranking, the double-elim set will (in all likelihood, but not guaranteed) result in a ranking list that looks more like the "true" ranking list (which is unknown). I haven't thought about it enough to say for sure that the extended series rule will similarly outperform a double-elim tournament without the rule on average, but it seems intuitively like it would, which is (I think) the purpose. I might attempt a proper proof of this tommorow, but there you go. Make sure to account for the horrible luck it adds into the tournament. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On November 10 2010 18:04 dcemuser wrote: Make sure to account for the horrible luck it adds into the tournament. I still don't actually understand the argument on this so far, although I'm guessing its based on the fact that match orders (or something of that sort) can remove or create an advantage for a player compared to a different order with the same overall result. Which isn't actually relevant to my claim, or NonY's argument. | ||
|
SmoKim
Denmark10301 Posts
 | ||
|
SKtheAnathema
United States885 Posts
i still think that the advantage for the winner is already there without this rule. he gets to play someone that he already proved he could beat, so essentially, if he's really better than the other person then it's almost like getting a bye. | ||
|
Looms
United States4624 Posts
| ||
| ||
