EPTToo bad I can't get the pre-show at work (damn firewall). Will have to get it at home later.
Official State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 303
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
RationalGaze
United Kingdom121 Posts
Too bad I can't get the pre-show at work (damn firewall). Will have to get it at home later. | ||
|
hugman
Sweden4644 Posts
| ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
| ||
|
Mac223
Norway8 Posts
| ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
On December 01 2010 22:26 Grettin wrote: The finnish poem was so well read that i didn't understand a word! Yeah, InControl totally nailed that. Meaning he talked better finnish than me cos I didn't understand a single syllable of that poem. And I've lived among finns for 20 something years. Sorry Geoff but Day[9] was so much better in one of his funsies. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
On December 01 2010 22:22 hugman wrote: Two weeks ago iNcontrol kept saying over and over that tournaments aren't about determining the best player but are about determining the winner, and then he argues that BO1 sucks because it doesn't determine the best player. The tournament doesn't determine the best player because certain players are better against other players/races, it doesn't mean a bo3/bo5 isn't a good way to determine which of a certain 2 players are better. | ||
|
Starfox
Austria699 Posts
| ||
|
DyEnasTy
United States3714 Posts
| ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
If, for example, 2 players meet in the loser's bracket who have not played eachother before, and one of them has lost more games than the other, then MLG correctly does not account for that. But when the two players are playing for the second time, it randomly changes and suddenly the amount of games and not series that they have won or lost becomes important. It makes no sense; both players have lost 1 series and won x amount of series, they both deserve their spot. Don't want to start another 50 page, dull debate though. As far as I'm concerned that's the be all and end of it. MLG counts games not series when 2 players face eachother more than once, but not in any other situation. | ||
|
nehl
Germany270 Posts
On December 01 2010 23:15 DyEnasTy wrote: You my SOTG friends, are why I dont hate wednesdays. Keep it up and let the haters hate! sign on wendnesday its podcast time. nothing else im looking forward to on wednesdays  hope you keep it up. btw. a cast with TLO would be awesome | ||
|
Siffer
United States467 Posts
Lower bracket should be considered a separate tournament from Upper bracket. You get knocked out of one tournament and get placed in another. At least that is how I have viewed it for the past 10 years I have played CS, WC3, and SC2. | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
On December 01 2010 23:15 DyEnasTy wrote: You my SOTG friends, are why I dont hate wednesdays. Keep it up and let the haters hate! Personally I love wednesdays now because I meet up with some friends in a nearby town and I get to listen to SotG on the train. S'awesome. | ||
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
1:28:00 and forward | ||
|
Luvz
Norway356 Posts
| ||
|
gerundium
Netherlands786 Posts
On December 02 2010 00:25 Luvz wrote: the download link is extremely slow! Yes indeed it is. im just getting 40 kb/s down which is just sad. | ||
|
xrayEU
Sweden571 Posts
| ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On December 02 2010 00:13 Siffer wrote: RE: Extended Series. Lower bracket should be considered a separate tournament from Upper bracket. You get knocked out of one tournament and get placed in another. At least that is how I have viewed it for the past 10 years I have played CS, WC3, and SC2. Ugh I can't believe I keep getting drawn back into commenting about extended series... but like, your view blows my mind. They're 2 different tournaments? At the same event, with the same players, competing for the same prize money and ranking, with structures logically linked together, etc... I can't fathom how you can see a double elim competition as having 2 separate tournaments going on. The view that tournaments have a memory of a player's performance is actually shared by both sides of this debate. Both views recognize that a tournament remembers that a player has won or lost rounds because that is essential to a bracket. The extended series view wants to remember another thing: which players a player wins or loses against. There is no debate that if you care about who you've had to face, then playing one bo7 is better than playing 2 bo3's. (Winning the first bo3 and losing the second bo3 should obviously be regarded as an even performance between those players, but one player gets eliminated and the other goes on. No reason has been discovered for weighting the second bo3 more. Attempts at it have been mere restatements of the fundamental position of those opposed to extended series.) What confuses me is that everyone judges a player's path through the bracket based on who he has had to play, judging more difficult paths as greater accomplishments, and yet they do not want a tournament structure that utilizes that wisdom in order to improve its ability to advance the better player. If we as subjective judges of tournament performance find memory of the identities of a player's opponents valuable, and we have one small way of implementing this information into an objective format, then why not use it? | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
On December 02 2010 00:32 Liquid`Tyler wrote: Ugh I can't believe I keep getting drawn back into commenting about extended series... but like, your view blows my mind. They're 2 different tournaments? At the same event, with the same players, competing for the same prize money and ranking, with structures logically linked together, etc... I can't fathom how you can see a double elim competition as having 2 separate tournaments going on. The view that tournaments have a memory of a player's performance is actually shared by both sides of this debate. Both views recognize that a tournament remembers that a player has won or lost rounds because that is essential to a bracket. The extended series view wants to remember another thing: which players a player wins or loses against. There is no debate that if you care about who you've had to face, then playing one bo7 is better than playing 2 bo3's. (Winning the first bo3 and losing the second bo3 should obviously be regarded as an even performance between those players, but one player gets eliminated and the other goes on. No reason has been discovered for weighting the second bo3 more. Attempts at it have been mere restatements of the fundamental position of those opposed to extended series.) What confuses me is that everyone judges a player's path through the bracket based on who he has had to play, judging more difficult paths as greater accomplishments, and yet they do not want a tournament structure that utilizes that wisdom in order to improve its ability to advance the better player. If we as subjective judges of tournament performance find memory of the identities of a player's opponents valuable, and we have one small way of implementing this information into an objective format, then why not use it? But in the podcast you argue that there is a tournament performance, not just a series of show matches, but extended series is not helping judge tournament performance, it's helping judge the performance between those 2 players. If someone wins the first bo3 and loses the second bo3, yes it's an even performance, but only in the games played between those two individuals. In terms of tournament performance, one of those players has lost more series than the other guy, and he goes out. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
| ||
