|
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?"
THIS is one of the big reasons i consistently tune in, never change my friend, but of course i love everyone on the show and really appreciate the effort, thanks!
|
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'.
Yeah, the solution to that would be to narrow down the player pool to around 32, which would probably require a more intensive selection process, but it would cut out a lot of fat from the competition, so to speak. I suppose a lot of lesser players wouldn't get the chance to compete, but such is life.
|
On November 11 2010 08:17 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This seems a little odd to me... Like you are saying "the point of a tournament is to have a tournament." The idea of "winning a tournament" is showing, roughly, that "I was the best on that day/weekend/whatever." Thats why it has prestige. There is obviously some kind of skill judgement that taking place.
In terms of ranking players, single- and double- elimination tournaments do a pretty bad job, but there are other tournament formats that do a lot better. Most of the "big sports" with long seasons don't only employ tournaments to determine the season champion -- they use a long round-robin style tournament for the regular season, and switch to a binary tournament to determine the champion.
There are a number of good reasons for this. First off, single- or double-elimination tournaments are much more entertaining than round-robin or swiss-style play. I don't think anyone can argue that. Also, the regular season doesn't always do a good job of who can perform best "under pressure" or "at their peak", which is what most people want to see.
But regardless of all that, my only point was that if you are arguing under the assumption that the tournament winner is supposed to be the most skilled, then the fact that everyone wins and loses with a certain probability doesn't really change the equation much. Having an extended series still benefits the probability of the better player winning.
And despite all of that, I am still against the extended series rule, just because it is confusing and less exciting. If you really want to use tournaments to measure the skill of the players, then you need to switch to a different format. (Some kind of rounds play -- maybe swiss style -- followed by a single-elimination tournament for the champion.)
|
Surprised at IdrA's response to his name's source, I thought it was from the Aramaic word.
|
Indian god, not Native American god. Indra was the lord of the devas/ king of heaven. The son of the demon king Ravana defeated Indra and was dubbed Indrajit - conqueror of Indra.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indrajit
|
Wow reading up on the lore of Indrajit makes me think that the namesake is really appropriate for IdrA's current SC2 style. Indrajit's Vajna is essentially IdrA's macro, which takes time and preparation to ramp up into near invincibility. Only when his macro/Vajna ceremony is interrupted before his perfect army and economy/celestial chariot is summoned is he vulnerable. An exaggeration of course, since IdrA is by no means inherently unbeatable in the late-game.
|
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?"
lmao! i always thought the jokes and the sarcasm rings pretty clear when incontrol is talking about those things. i mean, he even -uncharacteristically- gave away the fact that he was joking during the 88 nazi thing (didn't know that before actually, learn something new every day).
|
I just want to say that tyler's suggestions for replacing the 2 set of 3s with best of 7s just blew me away. I respect tyler so much more now because I agree very much with what he said.
Only downside is that series may take more time, but that time runover would occur only in the extended series. Of course tyler already mentioned that. However, I was disappointed when you just backtracked and said you support no extended series. So much good arguments gone to waste 
|
... your racist jokes sometimes cross the border of funny to offensive... and while some are of taste, there are some that are just down right insulting
Dude, sign me up for the Racist Jokes Of Taste campaign. Let's stamp out all the distasteful, tainted ones, leaving only the purest, most appropriate breeds of Racist Jokes!
EDIT: Anybody else find it hilarious that for all our SC2 fervor and zeal, we apparently can't decide what the point of a tournament is?
|
My 2c about the extended series rule.
Even above determining who is the better player a tournament needs to be fair and consistent.
I think this is the point day9 was trying to making when he mentioned "feelings".
When you get knocked into the losers bracket - why is it that you are artificially "punished" or artificially given an advantage when you by chance happen to meet the same player again in the losers bracket?
You can't always think of the extended series as a best of 7. Maps pools are refreshed, having a best of 7 determined by a possible only 2 maps doesn't make it that much more accurate than a bo3.
If we make this slight concession to have the "better" player move forward, what stops us from making other slight concessions? Should the player who defeated higher seeded players get some kind of advantage, should defeating a player that knocked that player out give you some kind of advantage, etc. etc. These slight things ruin the integrity and "fairness" of a CASH PRIZE tournament, the extended series rule does the same thing in my opinion.
|
On November 11 2010 11:18 StUfF wrote:
My 2c about the extended series rule.
Even above determining who is the better player a tournament needs to be fair and consistent.
I think this is the point day9 was trying to making when he mentioned "feelings".
When you get knocked into the losers bracket - why is it that you are artificially "punished" or artificially given an advantage when you by chance happen to meet the same player again in the losers bracket?
You can't always think of the extended series as a best of 7. Maps pools are refreshed, having a best of 7 determined by a possible only 2 maps doesn't make it that much more accurate than a bo3.
If we make this slight concession to have the "better" player move forward, what stops us from making other slight concessions? Should the player who defeated higher seeded players get some kind of advantage, should defeating a player that knocked that player out give you some kind of advantage, etc. etc. These slight things ruin the integrity and "fairness" of a CASH PRIZE tournament, the extended series rule does the same thing in my opinion.
People who disagree seems to always miss Tyler's point entirely.
Here is the argument laid out so its easy to understand, and why extended series can be logically more fair than reseting the series and having 2 bo3s.
1) Bo7 is a better way to determine skill than 2 Bo3
2) If I beat you 2-0 earlier and you beat me 0-2 in losers, we're at 2-2 in this tournament. But you get to advance and I get eliminated because order we played the game in.
Or even worse, If I beat you 2-0 and we face again in losers and you beat me 1-2, we're actually at 3-2 in favour of me in this tournament. Then why should the guy who got the 2 wins advance just because the order we played the game in?
It is not a concession to have better player move forward. It's a different way of thinking about the fairness of the tournament.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=167164¤tpage=16#304
|
Like I said.
Extended series != Bo7
You are thinking fairness in a one on one situation, is x player better than x player - your sense of fair is isolated to the point of which player should advance, you need to think of the tournament as a whole.
Like everyone says, in this tournament format you cannot think of playing the same player again as an "extension" of the previous bo3 BECAUSE it isn't.
Lets say hypothetically, in your logic, taking to a more extreme - I go through the winner's bracket winning all my Bo3's 2-1, another player goes through winning all theirs 2-0. Is the guy who goes 14-0 dropping no matches "better" than the one that went 14-7? Should they get some sort of advantage because of that? If you're saying previous matches should effect current matches then we should give the winner starting map choice or something.
|
On November 11 2010 12:02 StUfF wrote:
Like I said.
Extended series != Bo7
You are thinking fairness in a the better player advances - your sense of fair is isolated to the point of which player should advance. There is a huge difference.
Like everyone says, in this tournament format you cannot think of playing the same player again as an "extension" of the previous bo3 BECAUSE it isn't.
Lets say hypothetically, in your logic, taking to a more extreme - I go through the winner's bracket winning all my Bo3's 2-1, another player goes through winning all theirs 2-0. Is the guy who goes 14-0 dropping no matches "better" than the one that went 14-7? Should they get some sort of advantage because of that? If you're saying previous matches should effect current matches then we should give the winner starting map choice or something.
Read Tyler's post. Comprehend before making a post.
How one guy played others have no bearing between determining the skill between you and me, because it is possible in reality for A player to be better than B, B to be better than C, but C has better chance against A. Rock paper scissors anyone?
We play a series to determine which one of us is better out of the two. If you think logically then, If we play 2 isolated Bo3 and you win 1 and I win the other, we're tied 1-1 according to the system.
BUT, guy who wins the later series gets to advance because....?
You say it isn't an extension of previous Bo3, and you can't name the exact reason why. This is precisely because people are too caught up with how tournaments work and refuse to think about fairness of the actual system itself.
Tell me, why is the game played later is of more significance than the game played before?
Extended series basically gets rid of this bias in that when the game gets played does not matter, because 1 additional potential game gets played, in event of (2-0) (0-2) situation, in order to truely determine who is the better player between two of us.
It is quite sad to see Tyler spend all his energy trying to explain his stance rather than debate with people who actually has good argument.
|
On November 11 2010 12:02 StUfF wrote:
Like I said.
Extended series != Bo7
You are thinking fairness in a one on one situation, is x player better than x player - your sense of fair is isolated to the point of which player should advance, you need to think of the tournament as a whole.
Like everyone says, in this tournament format you cannot think of playing the same player again as an "extension" of the previous bo3 BECAUSE it isn't.
Lets say hypothetically, in your logic, taking to a more extreme - I go through the winner's bracket winning all my Bo3's 2-1, another player goes through winning all theirs 2-0. Is the guy who goes 14-0 dropping no matches "better" than the one that went 14-7? Should they get some sort of advantage because of that? If you're saying previous matches should effect current matches then we should give the winner starting map choice or something.
But the map choice system is designed to be fair because even if the loser gets first pick, if it works out so well that he wins his map choice, the original winner then gets map pick for losing.
Also it's plainly obvious that the extended series using previous match results is specifically to gauge those two players who have met up before, external factors play no part in that. Whereas your comparison isn't gauging the players based on their head to head performance, but a much more subjective thing such as their overall record where they might have played a completely different set of players.
|
Just wanted to chime in on the MLG Live on Three brouhaha, which I watched primarily for the interviews with the players.
Bear in mind, this is the opinion of a random 30-year-old guy that just got into SC2 for nostalgia reasons.
First of all, I thought the players themselves -- the guests -- came off great. They were obviously unwinding after a big tournament, and despite being rowdy, whenever they sat on the couch for their interviews most of them came of as intelligent, decent guys.
Day 9 mentions in this SOTG cast that he was a little self-conscious being filmed in a party atmosphere, but he seemed perfectly normal to me. He was no more/less giddy than he usually is.
Tyler. The dude is actually a better interview on video than in a podcast. He just came off as a mature, smart, diplomatic guy that has his shit together. Same with PainUser. Both are my new favorite players.
IdrA was as slightly amused as always.
InControl, I wrote your a special letter.
Dear InControl,
Just a word of advice, which you can take with a grain of salt.
As a big scary White guy, you will always -- until you're sixty -- have to walk a fine line between being satirical and being perceived as a redneck-jock-asshole. As you've probably already realized, you have to be disproportionately courteous and complimentary in an open forum discussion just so people won't think you're some kind of dick. This is primarily because you're a huge and scary looking man.
If Gretorp or some small Asian dude were cracking the same ass-rape joke, people would think it was hilarious. Unfortunately, when you do it, it makes you look like Fred Durst. You should probably restrict the subjects of your ass-and-dick-rape humor to Artosis, famous people, or mythological figures like Jesus Christ or Minotaurs.
I know it's not fair, but this is the kind of bullshit Black guys have had to deal with since they were 14. Just saying.
Aside from that, great interview. Good luck in the GSL.
Anyway, even though it wasn't meant to be a 'professional' cast, I presume part of the reason that Live on Three casted the party in the first place was to take advantage of all the great players in the room, and presumably expand their audience.
As a SOTG fan, I must say the combination of Slasher, Wheat and Scoots just didn't do it for me. Maybe it was the situation, but I don't really want to watch a show where a host complains about the 'bitches' in the audience, or randomly calls an invited guest in the room a piece of shit, bringing the show to a screeching halt.
I know these guys are friends of State of the Game, but still. Personally, I want to follow a sport with interesting personalities, like Poker, not a reality show where the hosts start acting retarded, like the Gathering of the Jugaloos.
What I appreciate about State of the Game, and the hosts: JP, InControl, Tyler, and Day 9 ... is that they are actually extraordinarily polite and gracious to their guests and audience. Yes, they talk shit occasionally and take calls from their girlfriends, but the next second they're giving a guest the chance to talk, or thanking the fans they met at MLG.
It's not about 'professionalism.' It's about not pretending you're badass or that your fans are beneath you.
Basically the MLG party stream made me a bigger SOTG fan, but I probably won't be checking out Live on Three anytime soon.
I'm not criticizing anyone's taste, it's just not for me. But maybe that will clarify where all these 'haters' are coming from.
|
|
|
Thank for the show, its was amazing and hilarious as always. Thanks for the effort etc.
I personally dont like the extended series rule at all. Its not fitting for the final games to be mostly over already. When you sit down to a final (as a spectator) you want to be sitting down to a FINAL set of games. From a spectator point of view a renewed set is so much better.
Thanks again for the effort.
|
Tyler, I love you now because of your Ro7 argument.
|
Oh, God. I was listening to this in class today and almost burst out laughing when they were talking about Tyler's ID and what he should change it to.
State of the Game, the highlight of my week as always. :D
Good luck in Korea, Geoff!
|
On November 11 2010 12:39 Defacer wrote:
"As a big scary White guy, you will always -- until you're sixty -- have to walk a fine line between being satirical and being perceived as a redneck-jock-asshole."
"This is primarily because you're a huge and scary looking man."
"Unfortunately, when you do it, it makes you look like Fred Durst."
This is exactly why it's so goddamn hilarious. Personally your letter only caused more appreciation for Geoff's outstanding humor.
I'm not entirely sure if you're being serious or not, but if you are being serious: I disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
