|
On December 02 2010 01:55 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 01:42 Sl4ktarN wrote:
About Tylers comment about MaNas skillevel: Did you guys see MorroW vs MaNa. It was by far the worst series I´ve seen Ever. Worse than some shit Jaehoon did in Broodwar becouse that was pretty funny and you felt kinda sad for him for being so nervous but MaNa vs MorroW... Seriously... It´s up on Day9s archive, you have to see it to get it. I was one of the guys in the crowd and we were a gang who sat there talking throughout that entire series and did really think for a moment that that game was a joke. I didn't see it =[
It´s up on Day9s archives, I can give a little recap of how terrible it was.
Spoilers of MorroW vs MaNa.
+ Show Spoiler +
Game 1: MaNa fails a cannonrush MISERABLY. His pylons do not block the ramp or the hatch and MorroW can easily just run by it.
Game 2: MaNa builds a 15nexus with a Pylon ON THE TOP OF HIS RAMP. Builds the forge over the ramp aswell so it doesnt block anything. All this after he has scouted that MorroW is going for a 14pool with an early gas. MorroW DOES NOT PUNISH IT even though it´s pretty much an open goal!
Edit: These are just the openings! It gets worse but I didnt want to spoil all the facepalming.
|
On December 02 2010 00:32 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.)
It is NOT an even performance overall though. If player A wins the first series and player B wins the second series, player B moves on because he has lost one less match overall in the whole tournament, so he moves on in the tournament. If you want to think of the series between player A and B being even in this case, that's fine. Then you can think of the overall number of lost series in the whole tournament (2 for player A and 1 for player B) as being the tiebreaker that allows player B to move on.
|
I wish you guys would do the critique of what the GSL should be doing when Artosis was on the show, would be cool to hear his thoughts. Actually I wouldn't mind Tasteless as a guest, you've had Artosis a few times, why not the other half of the archon?
As far as the extended series goes, it just feels like beating a dead CockHorse at this point.
|
On December 02 2010 17:34 Mellotron wrote:
Financial and sponsor logistics aside, your track record in my mind as a Starcraft fan is: MLG didnt care about SC until it had pretty graphics, even though competitive SC is the utmost pinnacle of competitive gaming.
Sorry, but that comes across to anyone reasonable as crazed fanboy rambling. Western audiences will not watch a game that no one plays anymore and on top of it runs at 640x480 8bit with hand drawn sprites. Competitive SC started in Korea a long, long time ago, which is why it works there. In the west Brood War (and I'm not slighting the game or the competitive aspect of it - it's a great game) was about as niche as you could get.
To hold it against MLG that they didn't support an RTS from 1998 in the late 2000s is absolutely ridiculous. Big tournaments are not organized to strive for some Platonic ideal of what "the utmost pinnacle of competitive gaming" is to you. They're organized because there's money to be made. That's what these people do for a living.
|
On December 02 2010 19:59 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 18:23 kojinshugi wrote:On December 02 2010 18:06 Velr wrote:
I would like more talk about Starcraft than about Tournament-Brackets/rules and so on...
I was bored for most of the cast :/.
Discuss Maps/Matchups/Strats... Not all the other stuff. Right now the priorities seem to be reversed.
State of the Game is a talk show about competitive Starcraft, it's not the Newbie Tuesday Radio Edition. Who said anything about newb-level? I just don't get why they discuss for like an hour about brackets since like... The last 2-3 Casts? It's like lsitening to a Jew arguing with a Christian about which religion is superior and why. This has not much to do with competetive Starcraft anymore, it's just a "war of faiths". The other stuff about Boots and so on was fine because, surprise, it actually had something to do directly with Starcraft. To say something about the coinflip was also good. But i missed more about Dreamhack/GSL or recent trends whatever. You know, stuff about the Game. That last cast felt to be nearly as much about Halo as about Starcraft  .
Their guest was MLG.Lee, the head of PC gaming at the largest e-sports tournament in North America, and you're complaining that they talked about that tournament.
Okay.
Oh, and the "Newbie Tuesday" part was hyperbole.
|
If you look at how WoW have failed for MLG its not a surprise that they are taking it slow with SC2 and building it up as it goes along.
I hope it will become bigger quickly, would be kind of strange if asia, europe and latin america will take a big lead over the US regarding prizepools. Only the C-team will compete in the US after 2011 if that is the case.
|
On December 02 2010 16:28 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 08:59 EchOne wrote:
On sound-canceling headphones:
I'm skeptical of Lee's claim that active noise control (ANC) technology is rooted in military research, and that its limitations on canceling high-frequency sound are based on intentional design decisions to allow high-frequency sound. ANC has military applications that usually demand devices that allow speech, but military applications don't necessarily have identical requirements to commercial applications in general, let alone eSports applications. ANC and phase canceling may be more effective against continuous, low-frequency noise than sudden high-frequency noise like speech, but is the reason really because the military demanded that devices be designed that way? He's confusing noise-canceling and sound-canceling. Sound-canceling doesn't require fancy digital signal processing, it requires physically insulating the player's ears from any outside noise.
I think the actual terms are noise-cancelling and noise-isolating
|
sotg is awesome, thanks jp for the awesome show last tuesday. It sucks you'll be playing wow next week... hope you can squeeze one last episode this year before christmas. thanks for your time
|
United States1319 Posts
To be honest, I used to hate the extended series even when I used to play Halo back during Halo 2, because it always made the finals less relevant and boring, because USUALLY the winner's bracket team won. Although, when I heard what Lee and Tyler were talking about, I start to agree. Still, I want it to be double elim, because it makes it more fun for me, the audience, but overall extended series, if only applied to 2 people that played each other previously, then I think it should be kept for MLG.
|
On December 02 2010 20:53 Shakes wrote:As far as the extended series goes, it just feels like beating a dead CockHorse at this point.
The man is a god damn legend. We need him on the show if only to reveal the true meaning of his ID.
Is it a horse made of cocks or simply a horse with a large cock? The world may never know.
|
|
|
8751 Posts
noise isolating earphones work great, especially when you have music playing. cant hear anything around you. but probably most people aren't comfortable with them since you kinda insert them into your ears as opposed to earbuds that just hang on your ear.
|
I don't really want to get into the specifics of the extended series argument (I could go either way) but it drives me crazy when people when people just state how things should be.
On December 02 2010 17:51 Siffer wrote:
Each match should have a binary result. You either win the series or you don't.
Why should each match have a binary result?
Take a minute and challenge your assumptions before you state how things "should" be. Just because thats how it's always been done before doesn't mean thats how we should continue to do things.
|
On December 03 2010 00:15 Feridan wrote:
i love turtles
hamburgerssssssssssssssss
|
The debate about extended series was highly interesting and I gave it some thought while I was on a walk.
I came to the conclusion that extended series is not really fair. The idea of double elim is that you have one "life", lose twice and you are out. The further you go in a tournament before losing the less people you have to beat in a row to make it to finals. This is something that only your performance affects.
Extended series brings a random element to your tournament success.
We got two players: Geoff and Tyler - and two groups of players: A & B.
Group A are people who have all lost to Geoff, group B in turn to Tyler. These two players play against each other. If Geoff makes it to the finals undefeated, whole group A's chances of winning the tournament are worse compared to group B while everyone apart from Geoff have one thing in common: they have lost one match. As a group A player your success in the tournament is determined by a random element: how well Geoff and everyone he faces perform.
Funny thing is to note: the further into the brackets you are before losing your first match, the higher the chance you have to face your victor is. If you lose your first match, it's highly unlikely you will have to start from deficit. Shouldn't you be rewarded for making it further undefeated?
In double elim tournament, everyone except for one have used their extra "life" before the grand finals. The undefeated player is the only one who "suffers", if you want to make the tournament compeletely fair he would start the finals in a lead regardless to the opponent.
|
It's simple - SC2 isn't Halo. We're not all 14 year old boys wearing backwards baseball caps and calling each other 'bro' and 'bra'. Not having extended series works out in itself. There should be no advantages given to anyone. No 'champions' bracket where straight ripping automatically advances. The better player doesn't need the tournament rigging the tourney. FFS, no poopy added to your pants if you happen to come across the same player a second time, or hell, maybe a 3rd time.
This is different from making sure Nony & Idra don't play each other in Ro64. That was done correctly, the seeding based off of rank.
If they can't get a winners and losers bracket working then switch to group play. Top 2 advance and then you bracket off after that. You can finish group play on day 1 & run the bracket on Day 2/3.
|
On December 03 2010 00:43 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
The debate about extended series was highly interesting and I gave it some thought while I was on a walk.
I came to the conclusion that extended series is not really fair. The idea of double elim is that you have one "life", lose twice and you are out. The further you go in a tournament before losing the less people you have to beat in a row to make it to finals. This is something that only your performance affects.
Extended series brings a random element to your tournament success.
We got two players: Geoff and Tyler - and two groups of players: A & B.
Group A are people who have all lost to Geoff, group B in turn to Tyler. These two players play against each other. If Geoff makes it to the finals undefeated, whole group A's chances of winning the tournament are worse compared to group B while everyone apart from Geoff have one thing in common: they have lost one match. As a group A player your success in the tournament is determined by a random element: how well Geoff and everyone he faces perform.
Funny thing is to note: the further into the brackets you are before losing your first match, the higher the chance you have to face your victor is. If you lose your first match, it's highly unlikely you will have to start from deficit. Shouldn't you be rewarded for making it further undefeated?
In double elim tournament, everyone except for one have used their extra "life" before the grand finals. The undefeated player is the only one who "suffers", if you want to make the tournament compeletely fair he would start the finals in a lead regardless to the opponent.
I like this argument very much.
If you want to penalize the players in the loser bracket, it should be done across the board, and not only to the specific player that you lost to.
And/Or award the winner of the Winners bracket for not dropping a match.
|
jp so manner, giving us a podcast when wow's coming out
|
I was disappointed there was no mention of MLG team league/tournament
|
@FrozenSolid: It's a reference at Sein(is), Naama's brother, who plays toss at a quite high (finnish) level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
