|
On November 11 2010 05:10 NoXious90 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 04:45 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On November 11 2010 04:34 Jibba wrote:
Their point is that even if it may be best, the results are so far from the truth that it shouldn't be packaged as a ranking. It's comparing 60% accuracy to 40% accuracy. And yet MLG ranks its player 1-16 and, when combining tournaments, goes beyond even that for seeding. Prize money is significant for ranks 1-8. I don't know what to call it other than ranking. My point, which I guess they missed, and which randplaty just picked up on a bit, is that the obvious and ostentatious purpose of any competition is to rank the performers as best as possible. When choosing format and rules, other considerations come into play like time, resources, what the spectators want, what the players want, etc, but you are always trying to maximize the accuracy of rankings within the restraints of all those other things. What would suck is if there's a rule that increases accuracy of rankings but gets removed because players and spectators think it decreases accuracy of rankings (or because they don't care about the increased accuracy and they have an unjustified bias against the rule). Are you satisfied then that jinro and TTOne are the absolute two best players in North America? Because I'm not, and I don't think many others would be either. It is so unbelievably unreasonable and unrealistic to attempt to infer perfect or even approximate rankings from a tournament that took place over three days, regardless of whether the extended rule is in place or not. This fact is, the tournament that took place in dallas over the weekend was an isolated incident, the circumstances of which will never be able to be perfectly replicated again, therefore you cannot reasonably suggest that you would get the same results if you held another 128 man tournament with the same players. This is a logical fact which something so immaterial as having an extended series rule in place could never under any circumstances hope to overcome. Therefore, by that fact alone, any attempts to strive at some universal settlement regarding a precise hierarchy of the skill levels of a group of players is futile and pointless, especially when pursuing such a thing involves sacrificing the entertainment value of the competition, which is THE REAL 'purpose' of a tournament such as this.
Your entire argument is invalid, since no one said it determines the best player in NA it determines the best performance at that tournament. If you honestly can't see how the extended series rule increases the accuracy of that result then your mind will not be changed. You're just being stubborn in your misguided opinion.
The isolated event argument is not logical, because the purpose of double elimination is to protect top players from early knockouts from bad seeding, not to set lesser players on an even footing. It's illogical to say, "Well they fought their way up through the losers bracket so they should be on an even footing" because they already lost to the player that knocked them down. The point Idra made is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the original loser could beat the person that knocked down the original winner, because if there was a way we could have absolutely perfect seeding, there would not be double elimination and therefore they wouldn't still be in the tournament after the first loss.
I honestly can't believe INcontrol, Day9, and Idra were arguing against it, my guess is they didn't fully understand Tyler's point.
As the purpose of Double elimination is NOT to give players a second chance, but to protect top players against bad seeding, there is no way you can logically say a double elimination tournament is not designed to determine who had the best performance at that tournament. Because this is true, any rule that increases the accuracy of that result can only be a positive one.
EDIT: And yes I think Jinro and TT1 Performed the best in the tournament, and I think, even though I love Tyler's play and I thought the restart was completely retarded, Painuser won his series with Tyler straight up, and I can honestly say it would not be a true judge of who played better if Tyler went on after that series while going 2-3 to Painuser overall.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 11 2010 06:37 vohne wrote:
Yo incontrol, as much as you are probably the funniest guy on the show and one of the reasons why I listen to it a lot, it does however get to the point that your racist jokes sometimes cross the border of funny to offensive. You can imagine what it is like for a regular subscriber to constantly hear this, and while some are of taste, there are some that are just down right insulting. Aside from this, I have nothing but good praise for this show and have continued to recommend it to my friends and people I meet on bnet. More power to the four pillars.
quit being such a native american. As a white man I feel obligated to discuss racial imbalances as they particularly favor me and my fellow supreme race brethren. next episode we will cover sexism issues and begin with the topic of "sandwiches: before or after she cleans the kitchen?"
|
Before listening to todays podcast i didnt see any reason for the extended series. But after hearing nonys reasoning, i have to agree that if the score is 2-2 then it doesnt seem fair that someone is declared a winner and can move on.
so a question i have is what if there was a best of five instead with a reset so the prior games dont count. or would this take to much time and possibly add to many games?
|
On November 11 2010 06:52 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 06:37 vohne wrote:
Yo incontrol, as much as you are probably the funniest guy on the show and one of the reasons why I listen to it a lot, it does however get to the point that your racist jokes sometimes cross the border of funny to offensive. You can imagine what it is like for a regular subscriber to constantly hear this, and while some are of taste, there are some that are just down right insulting. Aside from this, I have nothing but good praise for this show and have continued to recommend it to my friends and people I meet on bnet. More power to the four pillars. quit being such a native american. As a white man I feel obligated to discuss racial imbalances as they particularly favor me and my fellow supreme race brethren. next episode we will cover sexism issues and begin with the topic of "sandwiches: before or after she cleans the kitchen?"
You forgot religion, gotta hit that discussion some time as well.
|
would be nice of nony to share what model keyboard he uses. i've watched in awe from afar too long now, i must know.
|
On November 11 2010 06:52 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
next episode we will cover sexism issues and begin with the topic of "sandwiches: before or after she cleans the kitchen?"
It's about time!
|
On November 11 2010 06:52 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 06:37 vohne wrote:
Yo incontrol, as much as you are probably the funniest guy on the show and one of the reasons why I listen to it a lot, it does however get to the point that your racist jokes sometimes cross the border of funny to offensive. You can imagine what it is like for a regular subscriber to constantly hear this, and while some are of taste, there are some that are just down right insulting. Aside from this, I have nothing but good praise for this show and have continued to recommend it to my friends and people I meet on bnet. More power to the four pillars. quit being such a native american. As a white man I feel obligated to discuss racial imbalances as they particularly favor me and my fellow supreme race brethren. next episode we will cover sexism issues and begin with the topic of "sandwiches: before or after she cleans the kitchen?"
Answer: If you have to ask this question then she hasn't made you a sandwich or cleaned the kitchen. Drop that Bitch.
|
On November 11 2010 06:49 throttled wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 05:10 NoXious90 wrote:On November 11 2010 04:45 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On November 11 2010 04:34 Jibba wrote:
Their point is that even if it may be best, the results are so far from the truth that it shouldn't be packaged as a ranking. It's comparing 60% accuracy to 40% accuracy. And yet MLG ranks its player 1-16 and, when combining tournaments, goes beyond even that for seeding. Prize money is significant for ranks 1-8. I don't know what to call it other than ranking. My point, which I guess they missed, and which randplaty just picked up on a bit, is that the obvious and ostentatious purpose of any competition is to rank the performers as best as possible. When choosing format and rules, other considerations come into play like time, resources, what the spectators want, what the players want, etc, but you are always trying to maximize the accuracy of rankings within the restraints of all those other things. What would suck is if there's a rule that increases accuracy of rankings but gets removed because players and spectators think it decreases accuracy of rankings (or because they don't care about the increased accuracy and they have an unjustified bias against the rule). Are you satisfied then that jinro and TTOne are the absolute two best players in North America? Because I'm not, and I don't think many others would be either. It is so unbelievably unreasonable and unrealistic to attempt to infer perfect or even approximate rankings from a tournament that took place over three days, regardless of whether the extended rule is in place or not. This fact is, the tournament that took place in dallas over the weekend was an isolated incident, the circumstances of which will never be able to be perfectly replicated again, therefore you cannot reasonably suggest that you would get the same results if you held another 128 man tournament with the same players. This is a logical fact which something so immaterial as having an extended series rule in place could never under any circumstances hope to overcome. Therefore, by that fact alone, any attempts to strive at some universal settlement regarding a precise hierarchy of the skill levels of a group of players is futile and pointless, especially when pursuing such a thing involves sacrificing the entertainment value of the competition, which is THE REAL 'purpose' of a tournament such as this. Your entire argument is invalid, since no one said it determines the best player in NA it determines the best performance at that tournament. If you honestly can't see how the extended series rule increases the accuracy of that result then your mind will not be changed. You're just being stubborn in your misguided opinion. The isolated event argument is not logical, because the purpose of double elimination is to protect top players from early knockouts from bad seeding, not to set lesser players on an even footing. It's illogical to say, "Well they fought their way up through the losers bracket so they should be on an even footing" because they already lost to the player that knocked them down. The point Idra made is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the original loser could beat the person that knocked down the original winner, because if there was a way we could have absolutely perfect seeding, there would not be double elimination and therefore they wouldn't still be in the tournament after the first loss. I honestly can't believe INcontrol, Day9, and Idra were arguing against it, my guess is they didn't fully understand Tyler's point. As the purpose of Double elimination is NOT to give players a second chance, but to protect top players against bad seeding, there is no way you can logically say a double elimination tournament is not designed to determine who had the best performance at that tournament. Because this is true, any rule that increases the accuracy of that result can only be a positive one.
This is an unavoidable drawback of double elimination. You can either have an extended series rule and sacrifice the entertainment quality of the tournament or do without it completely and have it slightly less 'fair' yet make it more exciting for the fans to watch. I prefer the latter scenario.
To be honest, I think a round robin style tournament like they had at IEM is most preferable.
|
On November 11 2010 06:52 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 06:37 vohne wrote:
Yo incontrol, as much as you are probably the funniest guy on the show and one of the reasons why I listen to it a lot, it does however get to the point that your racist jokes sometimes cross the border of funny to offensive. You can imagine what it is like for a regular subscriber to constantly hear this, and while some are of taste, there are some that are just down right insulting. Aside from this, I have nothing but good praise for this show and have continued to recommend it to my friends and people I meet on bnet. More power to the four pillars. quit being such a native american. As a white man I feel obligated to discuss racial imbalances as they particularly favor me and my fellow supreme race brethren. next episode we will cover sexism issues and begin with the topic of "sandwiches: before or after she cleans the kitchen?"
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh shit
|
It's not "fairer"
Meeting in ro4 after playing 12 hours of SC2 is a different circumstance than ro64. Meaning the old matches shouldn't count. It's an arbitrary decision to count the match from 5 hours ago, why not count older tournaments etc. It's a different circumstance and you shouldn't count an earlier match. People can learn from each match or series and come back after adapting and win.
It's just a stupid idea to count earlier matches in later matches. Simply let the brackets and double elim work itself. People have been playing double elim tournies for a long time and "extended series" is non standard, dumb, and really kills any comebacks / adaptations.
Nony himself adapted well to Pain User's style after the first 2 losses. He should have won the 2nd best of 3 but because of extended series was knocked out. Extended series basically gives some people a very bad chance of advancing if they randomly hit someone who has beaten them already.
It's also not fun to watch someone have to go 4 wins vs 2 wins.
|
On November 11 2010 07:07 NoXious90 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 06:49 throttled wrote:On November 11 2010 05:10 NoXious90 wrote:On November 11 2010 04:45 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On November 11 2010 04:34 Jibba wrote:
Their point is that even if it may be best, the results are so far from the truth that it shouldn't be packaged as a ranking. It's comparing 60% accuracy to 40% accuracy. And yet MLG ranks its player 1-16 and, when combining tournaments, goes beyond even that for seeding. Prize money is significant for ranks 1-8. I don't know what to call it other than ranking. My point, which I guess they missed, and which randplaty just picked up on a bit, is that the obvious and ostentatious purpose of any competition is to rank the performers as best as possible. When choosing format and rules, other considerations come into play like time, resources, what the spectators want, what the players want, etc, but you are always trying to maximize the accuracy of rankings within the restraints of all those other things. What would suck is if there's a rule that increases accuracy of rankings but gets removed because players and spectators think it decreases accuracy of rankings (or because they don't care about the increased accuracy and they have an unjustified bias against the rule). Are you satisfied then that jinro and TTOne are the absolute two best players in North America? Because I'm not, and I don't think many others would be either. It is so unbelievably unreasonable and unrealistic to attempt to infer perfect or even approximate rankings from a tournament that took place over three days, regardless of whether the extended rule is in place or not. This fact is, the tournament that took place in dallas over the weekend was an isolated incident, the circumstances of which will never be able to be perfectly replicated again, therefore you cannot reasonably suggest that you would get the same results if you held another 128 man tournament with the same players. This is a logical fact which something so immaterial as having an extended series rule in place could never under any circumstances hope to overcome. Therefore, by that fact alone, any attempts to strive at some universal settlement regarding a precise hierarchy of the skill levels of a group of players is futile and pointless, especially when pursuing such a thing involves sacrificing the entertainment value of the competition, which is THE REAL 'purpose' of a tournament such as this. Your entire argument is invalid, since no one said it determines the best player in NA it determines the best performance at that tournament. If you honestly can't see how the extended series rule increases the accuracy of that result then your mind will not be changed. You're just being stubborn in your misguided opinion. The isolated event argument is not logical, because the purpose of double elimination is to protect top players from early knockouts from bad seeding, not to set lesser players on an even footing. It's illogical to say, "Well they fought their way up through the losers bracket so they should be on an even footing" because they already lost to the player that knocked them down. The point Idra made is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the original loser could beat the person that knocked down the original winner, because if there was a way we could have absolutely perfect seeding, there would not be double elimination and therefore they wouldn't still be in the tournament after the first loss. I honestly can't believe INcontrol, Day9, and Idra were arguing against it, my guess is they didn't fully understand Tyler's point. As the purpose of Double elimination is NOT to give players a second chance, but to protect top players against bad seeding, there is no way you can logically say a double elimination tournament is not designed to determine who had the best performance at that tournament. Because this is true, any rule that increases the accuracy of that result can only be a positive one. This is an unavoidable drawback of double elimination. You can either have an extended series rule and sacrifice the entertainment quality of the tournament or do without it completely and have it slightly less 'fair' yet make it more exciting for the fans to watch. I prefer the latter scenario. To be honest, I think a round robin style tournament like they had at IEM is most preferable.
It is. Round robin tournaments have been statistically proven to have the highest chance of producing the true winner.
The issue is you can't complete a 128-player round robin tournament in a weekend.
And yeah, I agree that for SC2 to grow as an esport, fan excitement is way more important than a slight increase in 'accuracy'.
|
On November 11 2010 07:07 NoXious90 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 06:49 throttled wrote:On November 11 2010 05:10 NoXious90 wrote:On November 11 2010 04:45 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On November 11 2010 04:34 Jibba wrote:
Their point is that even if it may be best, the results are so far from the truth that it shouldn't be packaged as a ranking. It's comparing 60% accuracy to 40% accuracy. And yet MLG ranks its player 1-16 and, when combining tournaments, goes beyond even that for seeding. Prize money is significant for ranks 1-8. I don't know what to call it other than ranking. My point, which I guess they missed, and which randplaty just picked up on a bit, is that the obvious and ostentatious purpose of any competition is to rank the performers as best as possible. When choosing format and rules, other considerations come into play like time, resources, what the spectators want, what the players want, etc, but you are always trying to maximize the accuracy of rankings within the restraints of all those other things. What would suck is if there's a rule that increases accuracy of rankings but gets removed because players and spectators think it decreases accuracy of rankings (or because they don't care about the increased accuracy and they have an unjustified bias against the rule). Are you satisfied then that jinro and TTOne are the absolute two best players in North America? Because I'm not, and I don't think many others would be either. It is so unbelievably unreasonable and unrealistic to attempt to infer perfect or even approximate rankings from a tournament that took place over three days, regardless of whether the extended rule is in place or not. This fact is, the tournament that took place in dallas over the weekend was an isolated incident, the circumstances of which will never be able to be perfectly replicated again, therefore you cannot reasonably suggest that you would get the same results if you held another 128 man tournament with the same players. This is a logical fact which something so immaterial as having an extended series rule in place could never under any circumstances hope to overcome. Therefore, by that fact alone, any attempts to strive at some universal settlement regarding a precise hierarchy of the skill levels of a group of players is futile and pointless, especially when pursuing such a thing involves sacrificing the entertainment value of the competition, which is THE REAL 'purpose' of a tournament such as this. Your entire argument is invalid, since no one said it determines the best player in NA it determines the best performance at that tournament. If you honestly can't see how the extended series rule increases the accuracy of that result then your mind will not be changed. You're just being stubborn in your misguided opinion. The isolated event argument is not logical, because the purpose of double elimination is to protect top players from early knockouts from bad seeding, not to set lesser players on an even footing. It's illogical to say, "Well they fought their way up through the losers bracket so they should be on an even footing" because they already lost to the player that knocked them down. The point Idra made is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the original loser could beat the person that knocked down the original winner, because if there was a way we could have absolutely perfect seeding, there would not be double elimination and therefore they wouldn't still be in the tournament after the first loss. I honestly can't believe INcontrol, Day9, and Idra were arguing against it, my guess is they didn't fully understand Tyler's point. As the purpose of Double elimination is NOT to give players a second chance, but to protect top players against bad seeding, there is no way you can logically say a double elimination tournament is not designed to determine who had the best performance at that tournament. Because this is true, any rule that increases the accuracy of that result can only be a positive one. This is an unavoidable drawback of double elimination. You can either have an extended series rule and sacrifice the entertainment quality of the tournament or do without it completely and have it slightly less 'fair' yet make it more exciting for the fans to watch. I prefer the latter scenario. To be honest, I think a round robin style tournament like they had at IEM is most preferable.
This is a counter-argument I can understand. I personally don't agree, but at least there is a logical point behind it.
But people trying to argue, "A double elimination bracket is not to provide a more accurate result of who performed better in the tournament" have absolutely no logic behind their argument.
|
On November 11 2010 06:52 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 06:37 vohne wrote:
Yo incontrol, as much as you are probably the funniest guy on the show and one of the reasons why I listen to it a lot, it does however get to the point that your racist jokes sometimes cross the border of funny to offensive. You can imagine what it is like for a regular subscriber to constantly hear this, and while some are of taste, there are some that are just down right insulting. Aside from this, I have nothing but good praise for this show and have continued to recommend it to my friends and people I meet on bnet. More power to the four pillars. quit being such a native american. As a white man I feel obligated to discuss racial imbalances as they particularly favor me and my fellow supreme race brethren. next episode we will cover sexism issues and begin with the topic of "sandwiches: before or after she cleans the kitchen?"
LOL man you need your own show !!
|
On November 11 2010 06:52 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 06:37 vohne wrote:
Yo incontrol, as much as you are probably the funniest guy on the show and one of the reasons why I listen to it a lot, it does however get to the point that your racist jokes sometimes cross the border of funny to offensive. You can imagine what it is like for a regular subscriber to constantly hear this, and while some are of taste, there are some that are just down right insulting. Aside from this, I have nothing but good praise for this show and have continued to recommend it to my friends and people I meet on bnet. More power to the four pillars. quit being such a native american. As a white man I feel obligated to discuss racial imbalances as they particularly favor me and my fellow supreme race brethren. next episode we will cover sexism issues and begin with the topic of "sandwiches: before or after she cleans the kitchen?"
I don't think that needs a whole episode... most women make sandwiches as they clean the kitchen.
And I downloaded that Drewbie game 3 rep... sad times.
|
These just keep getting better and better
|
On November 11 2010 07:12 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 07:07 NoXious90 wrote:On November 11 2010 06:49 throttled wrote:On November 11 2010 05:10 NoXious90 wrote:On November 11 2010 04:45 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On November 11 2010 04:34 Jibba wrote:
Their point is that even if it may be best, the results are so far from the truth that it shouldn't be packaged as a ranking. It's comparing 60% accuracy to 40% accuracy. And yet MLG ranks its player 1-16 and, when combining tournaments, goes beyond even that for seeding. Prize money is significant for ranks 1-8. I don't know what to call it other than ranking. My point, which I guess they missed, and which randplaty just picked up on a bit, is that the obvious and ostentatious purpose of any competition is to rank the performers as best as possible. When choosing format and rules, other considerations come into play like time, resources, what the spectators want, what the players want, etc, but you are always trying to maximize the accuracy of rankings within the restraints of all those other things. What would suck is if there's a rule that increases accuracy of rankings but gets removed because players and spectators think it decreases accuracy of rankings (or because they don't care about the increased accuracy and they have an unjustified bias against the rule). Are you satisfied then that jinro and TTOne are the absolute two best players in North America? Because I'm not, and I don't think many others would be either. It is so unbelievably unreasonable and unrealistic to attempt to infer perfect or even approximate rankings from a tournament that took place over three days, regardless of whether the extended rule is in place or not. This fact is, the tournament that took place in dallas over the weekend was an isolated incident, the circumstances of which will never be able to be perfectly replicated again, therefore you cannot reasonably suggest that you would get the same results if you held another 128 man tournament with the same players. This is a logical fact which something so immaterial as having an extended series rule in place could never under any circumstances hope to overcome. Therefore, by that fact alone, any attempts to strive at some universal settlement regarding a precise hierarchy of the skill levels of a group of players is futile and pointless, especially when pursuing such a thing involves sacrificing the entertainment value of the competition, which is THE REAL 'purpose' of a tournament such as this. Your entire argument is invalid, since no one said it determines the best player in NA it determines the best performance at that tournament. If you honestly can't see how the extended series rule increases the accuracy of that result then your mind will not be changed. You're just being stubborn in your misguided opinion. The isolated event argument is not logical, because the purpose of double elimination is to protect top players from early knockouts from bad seeding, not to set lesser players on an even footing. It's illogical to say, "Well they fought their way up through the losers bracket so they should be on an even footing" because they already lost to the player that knocked them down. The point Idra made is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the original loser could beat the person that knocked down the original winner, because if there was a way we could have absolutely perfect seeding, there would not be double elimination and therefore they wouldn't still be in the tournament after the first loss. I honestly can't believe INcontrol, Day9, and Idra were arguing against it, my guess is they didn't fully understand Tyler's point. As the purpose of Double elimination is NOT to give players a second chance, but to protect top players against bad seeding, there is no way you can logically say a double elimination tournament is not designed to determine who had the best performance at that tournament. Because this is true, any rule that increases the accuracy of that result can only be a positive one. This is an unavoidable drawback of double elimination. You can either have an extended series rule and sacrifice the entertainment quality of the tournament or do without it completely and have it slightly less 'fair' yet make it more exciting for the fans to watch. I prefer the latter scenario. To be honest, I think a round robin style tournament like they had at IEM is most preferable. It is. Round robin tournaments have been statistically proven to have the highest chance of producing the true winner. The issue is you can't complete a 128-player round robin tournament in a weekend. And yeah, I agree that for SC2 to grow as an esport, fan excitement is way more important than a slight increase in 'accuracy'.
This is why things like the swiss-style tournament were invented. They give you a fair ranking of players while only doing log(n) rounds (same as a binary tournament format). They have their own set of problems, though .. you'd probably still want a "top 8" format to finish it off.
|
On November 11 2010 06:24 nzb wrote:
Day[9]'s argument that tournaments don't guarantee the winner is a little irrelevant -- the point of a tournament is to maximize the probability that a player's final ranking will match their "true ranking" (based on probabilities, whatever). Tyler's argument was that the extended series increases this probability, which seems solid to me.
But I agree that extended series is a strange incongruence in the tournament format, and I'm not sure if the mathematical improvement to tournament outcomes is worth the head scratching it produces.
No, the point of a tournament is to find out who can beat the most opponents until there are no others left. People find such things entertaining.
There's absolutely nothing about a single tournament's results that can gauge skill. You can get a vague idea of skill (or consistency) by looking at the results of many tournaments, sorta, but the main point of any individual tournament is to compete and entertain, not to gauge skill. It's a piss-poor device for doing such a thing.
The only numbers that can somewhat objectively measure skill are ladder rankings. The top 100 players in the world are quite likely to be very, very good at this game indeed.
But this skill isn't a guarantor of tournament success. Nothing is, although consistent results will come from not losing focus due to stage fright or just the high-stakes games being played.
If you really want to figure out who the best SC2 players are (not just the most "skillful"), then you need to find people who consistently do well in tournaments and are also high on the ladder. When looking at results, ignore the outliers and see if overall they make it to the top 16 or top 8 more often than not.
|
I don't like extended series because they make unexciting finals. If there is something else that's pretty much as fair that'll make the finals a bit more exciting they should do it.
Podcast so good 
|
The point of an event is to get spectators. The Finals are a letdown if they are that short. I think that is the strongest reason, although Tyler has a good point.
|
Sean has proven that humans can get a 'pizza hangover', which is quite funny. I wonder what conversations he had.. "Dude, you look terrible, shouldn't drink that much over the weekend." 'No it's just..I had this whole kingsize pizza with onions and then I ate the one with pepperonis..so tasty..but they're killin my stomach..' "O_o;"
I don't like the extended series. The grand final should be a bo7 anyway, both players have earned their way to the final and there is no reason why anyone should be favored. (I know the player from the winners bracket 'loses' his drop to the losers bracket, but its the final so screw it!)
In the regular bracket the extended series only encourages cheese and that hardly makes games interesting. It also gives an unfair advantage against all other players who don't face the same player twice. Let me explain..
A player (regardless of which bracket he's in) always gets 'eliminated' if he loses 2 games in a match. And if a match is 1:1 he has to play on the top of his game to stay in the tournament, he just can't afford to cheese.
But what happens if a player 2:0s someone and meets him again in the losers bracket? Well, in a bo7 he needs to lose 4 times to be eliminated. NO, other player gets that luxury in the losers bracket and to make it worse he can try to cheese his opponent 3 times in a row. If only two of them work he'll get a free advance to the next round and that just sucks, because he didn't earn it with skill. He can also simply lose one game with cheese and even if it doesn't work he gets the map vote and can pick a map where he's heavily favored. Because he needs to lose 4 games he can do that until he either cheesed 2 wins or got 2 map votes. That isn't fair at all nor does it indicate in anyway that he's indeed the better player. If I could cheese&pick maps until I get what I want I could beat anybody too.^^
Either make it a fresh bo5/7 to determine who's better or stick to the regular bo3. A advantage for the winner that meets the same player twice isn't fair to the loser, because he had to go through at least one additional round&opponent to get to the point of being unlucky enough to face him again. And one of those players might have been the best player in the world. Why should it be 'fair' that he didn't have to face the best player AND has the opportunity to get a free advance by cheesing/map picking the games?
It isn't fair to the other players either, because they had to go through additional rounds maybe even against the 3rd,4th&5th best player because #1 sent them all down into your losers round. And that scrub from the winners bracket should get a round where he can lose 4 games before elimination because? That rule is just BS, especially if you apply it to a RTS game. The way how decision making&individual skill affects a halo match is completely different than in SC2. You just can't cheese a capture the flag or team deathmatch nor creates map picking a heavy imbalance for a team, because everyone uses the same guns and all maps are usually mirrored. (I don't think halo teams get to pick a map anyway to me it seemed like the map rotation was fixed for every round) And that's why the extended series rule shouldn't be applied to SC2. I might be wrong, but instead of getting results with higher accuracy it just gives one player a §$%&ing free pass to the next round for absolutely no reason.
btw>Does anybody know if it would actually be possible for one player to knock down 2-3 other players and then get matched against all of them, so he would get 2-3 extended series in his favor and basically cheese his way through half the tournament? Or are the brackets designed smart enough that it only happens once?^^
Now for LAN-support, Blizz has 2 options. They can either add public lan-mode and that would be really cool, because you could introduce people to SC2 on a party that otherwise would never touch it. One of the reasons why BW got so big was lan-support AND the ability to create multiplayer spawn-clients with only one disk.
btw>it's really silly that you have to buy another full price retail copy just to play in a different region/tournament. They should at least add the option to buy a license to battle.net and make it cheaper (like 10-15$). That cost to play in a different region is absolutely unreasonable.
Of course they don't want public lan, because they might lose sales, but lets be honest everybody who's into SC2 already bought it and piracy won't change anything even if it happens.
Their other option is to supply tournaments with a local 'fake b.net server' operated by a blizz technican. That way tournaments have perfect lan-support and there is almost zero risk that it could leak to public. Of course it costs money to move even a small server and a technican, but that's the price blizz has to pay if it wants SC2 to be big in e-sports. I don't think that organisations like MLG will tolerate these issues if it happens a few more times, because it really messed up the tournament and they recieve all the hate if things don't work out. Seriously, how would you explain to the crowd that they won't get to see the finals live, because there was a major internet outtage/routing problem and it gets way to late/players are to tired&refuse to play.
A live event like that is expensive..running 2-3 hours overtime (with all required costs), because b.net sucks isn't viable at all. Organisators will drop a game like that, because they can't afford the bad rep for their league/sponsors or the financial damage that they might face if spectators get 'cheated out' of a important part of the event that was promised to them..
I think that nydus worms are underrated and that's mainly because Hydras suck. If they were back to their old strength the nydus would become much more useful too. Right now they're only used to 'cheese' through wall-ins/entrenched positions and good players easily prevent that. The real strength of the nydus is to move stuff (like a slow hydra army) cross map almost instantely. Even with a creep highway or overlords with drop&speed you can't move that fast AND you might have to walk through your enemies army at a bad choke instead of having them instantely appear at a expansion on favored high ground. They also help to reduce the defenders advantage. Similar to a proxy pylon and warp-in, a nydus means that a battle is always on your turf, although it obviously requires more micro, proper placement and a map that is big enough (or with really bad chokes) to justify it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
