|
On June 09 2011 13:21 RmoteCntrld wrote:
You can't just pick and choose match ups. Brackets are based purely off results. Could a weaker player be higher seeded than a stronger player based off their groups? Yes, but thats just the nature of the beast.
This completely misses the point. The "nature of the beast" is that things are probabilistic and so we can expect some players to perform better or worse than is representative of their "true" skill level. In that sense, of course, you cannot just select matches based on how good the players are -- you have to respect the results, because that's the only objective measure of how good they are.
What you can do, however, is design a system that is most likely to achieve the desired result. In this case, the desired result is that the best player faces the worst player, as determined by the league play. Now, this is where you (and evidently iNcontroL) want to say "Ha! Well, that's exactly what it's based on!" The reason this doesn't work in this situation (while it does work in a league with a fixed pool of teams, such as the NHL) is that the tournament is invite-based, so there is effectively no comparison between the winner of the open tournament and any of the players seeded through league play.
This is a somewhat long-winded way of saying that it's reasonable to expect the winner of the open tournament to be better than the 15th seed into the championship bracket. It's a bad design for the tournament because the incentive to be the first seed has actually been removed. Assuming we accept that the winner of the open tournament is probably better than the 15th seed (NB: not just that it's possible, but that it's likely) then we're creating a perverse incentive by using such a system.
I'll add one final note: I don't think this should be changed for this season of the NASL. The rules have already been set, and I don't think they should be changed except in the case of an exceptionally disruptive rule, which I don't think this qualifies as. And I'll add once more that I think that this is merely a minor flaw in an otherwise well-designed league format.
|
I guess the real question is "how do we know the winner of the open bracket is the worst player of the 16 people and thus get the 16th seed?"
I guess there isn't an objective way to find out.
|
On June 09 2011 14:04 VPCursed wrote:
dunno why they would do this.. rofl.. who the fuck would want to be top seed in the NASL?
Apparently, some guy named Select, another called Julyzerg and some Squirtle do. I don't know man, I wish they were all like you and liked the easy way out instead of y'know, actually enjoying some competition, cause in the end, it is not at all what the NASL is, a competition.
|
On June 09 2011 14:08 Wargizmo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 14:00 WGarrison wrote:On June 09 2011 13:54 Wargizmo wrote:
It would be cool if the top guy in each division gets to pick his opponent and then the rest of the spots are filled up by rank.
That sounds cool in theory, but players can make some really strange picks. You can get strange situations such as maybe the number 1 seed picks the number 6 because of some weird metagame or racial matchup reasons. Straight seeded seems way less complicated and is a sound method. I disagree on both points. It's hardly complicated, and it rewards the guys who come top, which is IMO fairer than the possibility of the #1 guy having to play Thorzain or Dimaga 1st round.
Read his responses. He's arguing that the open player should be seeded 11th.
|
On June 09 2011 14:08 Wargizmo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 14:00 WGarrison wrote:On June 09 2011 13:54 Wargizmo wrote:
It would be cool if the top guy in each division gets to pick his opponent and then the rest of the spots are filled up by rank.
That sounds cool in theory, but players can make some really strange picks. You can get strange situations such as maybe the number 1 seed picks the number 6 because of some weird metagame or racial matchup reasons. Straight seeded seems way less complicated and is a sound method. I disagree on both points. It's hardly complicated, and it rewards the guys who come top, which is IMO fairer than the possibility of the #1 guy having to play Thorzain or Dimaga 1st round.
Its complicated because you have to go through a process of contacting players and getting selections and so on. You have to do it early so that the selected opponents can prepare. Way more work than plug and chug brackets in 1 minute.
Also the top seeded player has more time to prepare his matchup than his opponent. He knows ahead of time who he is going to pick but the picked player has no idea. It creates strange things.
And yes, I do advocate that top seed does not play open bracket winner.
|
On June 09 2011 14:11 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 14:04 VPCursed wrote:
dunno why they would do this.. rofl.. who the fuck would want to be top seed in the NASL? Apparently, some guy named Select, another called Julyzerg and some Squirtle do. I don't know man, I wish they were all like you and liked the easy way out instead of y'know, actually enjoying some competition, cause in the end, it is not at all what the NASL is, a competition.
Keep in mind MONEY is on the line. If someone told you, you would be facing Bomber if you seed first or will face kiwikaki if you seed 2nd...who would you pick? I'd rather lose to Bomber in the finals than in the first round. The prize money is vastly different.
|
On June 09 2011 14:10 PtM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 13:21 RmoteCntrld wrote:
You can't just pick and choose match ups. Brackets are based purely off results. Could a weaker player be higher seeded than a stronger player based off their groups? Yes, but thats just the nature of the beast. This completely misses the point. The "nature of the beast" is that things are probabilistic and so we can expect some players to perform better or worse than is representative of their "true" skill level. In that sense, of course, you cannot just select matches based on how good the players are -- you have to respect the results, because that's the only objective measure of how good they are. What you can do, however, is design a system that is most likely to achieve the desired result. In this case, the desired result is that the best player faces the worst player, as determined by the league play. Now, this is where you (and evidently iNcontroL) want to say "Ha! Well, that's exactly what it's based on!" The reason this doesn't work in this situation (while it does work in a league with a fixed pool of teams, such as the NHL) is that the tournament is invite-based, so there is effectively no comparison between the winner of the open tournament and any of the players seeded through league play. This is a somewhat long-winded way of saying that it's reasonable to expect the winner of the open tournament to be better than the 15th seed into the championship bracket. It's a bad design for the tournament because the incentive to be the first seed has actually been removed. Assuming we accept that the winner of the open tournament is probably better than the 15th seed (NB: not just that it's possible, but that it's likely) then we're creating a perverse incentive by using such a system. I'll add one final note: I don't think this should be changed for this season of the NASL. The rules have already been set, and I don't think they should be changed except in the case of an exceptionally disruptive rule, which I don't think this qualifies as. And I'll add once more that I think that this is merely a minor flaw in an otherwise well-designed league format.
Good points, I agree with you entirely.
Furthermore since it is reasonable to assume that the open bracket winner is stronger than 15th seed, 11th seed is a logical place to go. 1-10th seed is a set block of seeds, and 12-16th would also be a set, 11th flows nicely.
|
One of the biggest discrepencies with this is that the top 16 are strong... but players 11 -> 15 are STUPIDLY good due to where they are going to be placed.
Xeries showed the bracket makeup for NASL if the league ended last week.
The players most likely to win and get into the NASL playoffs from those groups were:
- Zenio
- Idra
- Kiwikaki
- MC
- Nada
With seeds being:
11: Zenio
12: Idra
13: Kiwikaki
14: Nada
15: MC
What you are suggesting is that the #1 seed play vs MC instead of the open round winner... or play vs somone like Zenio or Idra instead of the open tournament winner.
All of the players in the top 15 + open are ridiculously good... It doesn't matter if the open round winner is seeded 6th, 11th, or 16th, everyone will be playing a ridiculously talented and difficult to face opponent.
- - - - - - -
One of the biggest flaws with the idea of having the open tournament player seeded higher than 16th is the assumption that all groups were made equal. This is not true. As such, players who are ranked 11 - 20 are done so through wins and points, but that does not reflect 100% of the story.
Players from group 2 compared to those in group 5 have a vastly different skill level as a whole. Where some players who are in the top 30 are on a whole different level than others (ex. Idra compared to Moman, or MC vs Cruncher.)
The seeds from 11 - 15 will be some of the strongest players in the NASL simply due to how the divisions were created. They were not created equal, and when MC will most likely be the 15th seed for the NASL, you know something is a little messed up.
|
On June 09 2011 14:26 h3nG wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 14:11 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:On June 09 2011 14:04 VPCursed wrote:
dunno why they would do this.. rofl.. who the fuck would want to be top seed in the NASL? Apparently, some guy named Select, another called Julyzerg and some Squirtle do. I don't know man, I wish they were all like you and liked the easy way out instead of y'know, actually enjoying some competition, cause in the end, it is not at all what the NASL is, a competition. Keep in mind MONEY is on the line. If someone told you, you would be facing Bomber if you seed first or will face kiwikaki if you seed 2nd...who would you pick? I'd rather lose to Bomber in the finals than in the first round. The prize money is vastly different.
It's not about who would I pick, but since you asked that, I'd go with Bomber, simply because I think he'd be a better match to me. Again though, it is not about who would I pick. Also, I'd rather not lose to Bomber at all but that's just me, I don't play to lose.
I guess one could say your point is understandable as now in GSL ST we have someone like TheBest at the R16 whereas if GSL had done nitpicking and manual matches, we could only have MVP vs MC/NesTea until the finals and players like theBest, Junwi and Legalmind go out at the Ro64, but alas, EVERY event format has its pros and cons. There is NO perfect format. But that's besides the point.
|
Pretty amusing to see people complain about the NASL then watch it. Then complain. Then watch it again.
|
It takes a lot to win open winner's imo, and nevertheless it means that he would be the lowest seeded player so it's only fair that this is so.
|
On June 09 2011 14:39 Insanious wrote:
One of the biggest discrepencies with this is that the top 16 are strong... but players 11 -> 15 are STUPIDLY good due to where they are going to be placed.
Xeries showed the bracket makeup for NASL if the league ended last week.
The players most likely to win and get into the NASL playoffs from those groups were:
- Zenio
- Idra
- Kiwikaki
- MC
- Nada
With seeds being:
11: Zenio
12: Idra
13: Kiwikaki
14: Nada
15: MC
What you are suggesting is that the #1 seed play vs MC instead of the open round winner... or play vs somone like Zenio or Idra instead of the open tournament winner.
All of the players in the top 15 + open are ridiculously good... It doesn't matter if the open round winner is seeded 6th, 11th, or 16th, everyone will be playing a ridiculously talented and difficult to face opponent.
- - - - - - -
One of the biggest flaws with the idea of having the open tournament player seeded higher than 16th is the assumption that all groups were made equal. This is not true. As such, players who are ranked 11 - 20 are done so through wins and points, but that does not reflect 100% of the story.
Players from group 2 compared to those in group 5 have a vastly different skill level as a whole. Where some players who are in the top 30 are on a whole different level than others (ex. Idra compared to Moman, or MC vs Cruncher.)
The seeds from 11 - 15 will be some of the strongest players in the NASL simply due to how the divisions were created. They were not created equal, and when MC will most likely be the 15th seed for the NASL, you know something is a little messed up.
MC would be seeded 15th (or 16th by my philosophy) because of his performance in NASL. He started out the season going 0-3. The open tournament winner by necessity cannot start out 0-3 or even 0-1. There are a lot of good players in the open tournament that weren't in NASL season 1. The open winner has to beat all of them in sudden deaths, no losing.
I am comfortable seeding the open tournament winner higher than MC and accept all of the ramifications that result.
|
On June 09 2011 14:52 Probe1 wrote:
Pretty amusing to see people complain about the NASL then watch it. Then complain. Then watch it again.
I don't see who is complaining. We suggest change for the betterment of NASL because we love it and support it fully. We want the best, so we ask for it. Its all about the constructive criticism.
|
I love how TL'ers are panicking about something that hasn't actually happened yet. So what if the 16th seed is arguably better than the 15th? All 16 players are really, really good.
This happens in every other major sport, constantly. A team might have an easier schedule than another, and be seeded higher. There's no tournament system in sports that is 'fair' or 'scientifically accurate'.
It's not the end of the world.
Besides, Select has put himself in a situation where he can control his own destiny. There's nothing stopping him from phoning in a game and control the seeding. If he wanted he could drop his next game, and drop to second in his division if he thought it gave him an advantage in the playoffs.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2011 14:39 Insanious wrote:
One of the biggest discrepencies with this is that the top 16 are strong... but players 11 -> 15 are STUPIDLY good due to where they are going to be placed.
Xeries showed the bracket makeup for NASL if the league ended last week.
The players most likely to win and get into the NASL playoffs from those groups were:
- Zenio
- Idra
- Kiwikaki
- MC
- Nada
With seeds being:
11: Zenio
12: Idra
13: Kiwikaki
14: Nada
15: MC
What you are suggesting is that the #1 seed play vs MC instead of the open round winner... or play vs somone like Zenio or Idra instead of the open tournament winner.
All of the players in the top 15 + open are ridiculously good... It doesn't matter if the open round winner is seeded 6th, 11th, or 16th, everyone will be playing a ridiculously talented and difficult to face opponent.
- - - - - - -
One of the biggest flaws with the idea of having the open tournament player seeded higher than 16th is the assumption that all groups were made equal. This is not true. As such, players who are ranked 11 - 20 are done so through wins and points, but that does not reflect 100% of the story.
Players from group 2 compared to those in group 5 have a vastly different skill level as a whole. Where some players who are in the top 30 are on a whole different level than others (ex. Idra compared to Moman, or MC vs Cruncher.)
The seeds from 11 - 15 will be some of the strongest players in the NASL simply due to how the divisions were created. They were not created equal, and when MC will most likely be the 15th seed for the NASL, you know something is a little messed up.
People don't realize this, but every single SC tournament is bad in terms of trying to eliminate randomness. It's actually something bothers me quite a bit (may be I'm obsessive.)
They should simply have everyone play a match against everyone and then make a bracket based on that. Or simply have table system with no playoffs like European soccer.
|
On June 09 2011 14:11 don_kyuhote wrote:
I guess the real question is "how do we know the winner of the open bracket is the worst player of the 16 people and thus get the 16th seed?"
I guess there isn't an objective way to find out.
That's exactly the right question to ask. If the tournament field was already the best 50 players, then anyone who got through the open tournament would be certain to be the 16 seed. However, because of the huge flux in talent pools currently, and the NASL field not including all the best players already, there is the risk that the open tournament is similar to MLG (which gave us July).
Here are a couple of scenarios that illustrate the range of possibilities available:
~Open tournament is won by some mid-masters player who got really hot/had a couple handy cheeses. Such a player's success is temporary, no question he/she is the worst rated player of the 16.
~Open tournament is won by a pro. There's a huge range of professional gamers who weren't in the NASL league play, and they include a number who could easily be considered the best player in the finals (a few off the top of my head: Bomber, MMA, somebody from IM, a ton of other Koreans, Jinro, Huk, ThorZain, White-Ra, Dimaga). So now it's entirely possible that the best two players would have to play each other in the first round!
[disclaimer: I have absolutely no idea who's playing in the open tournament. All names above are for illustration only.]
tl;dr: As long as you can't guarantee that the best 50 players interested in the NASL played in the league months, you're not going to guarantee that the open winning is actually the lowest seed.
|
On June 09 2011 15:03 Defacer wrote:
I love how TL'ers are panicking about something that hasn't actually happened yet. So what if the 16th seed is arguably better than the 15th? All 16 players are really, really good.
This happens in every other major sport, constantly. A team might have an easier schedule than another, and be seeded higher. There's tournament system in sports that is not 'fair' or 'scientifically accurate'. but it's not the end of the world.
Besides, if someone like Select was soooooooo good, and was capable of controlling his own destiny, they're nothing stopping him from phoning in a game and control the seeding. If he wanted he could drop his next game, and drop to second in his division if he thought it gave him an advantage in the playoffs.
If players do not always have a motive to win, either a fluke has occurred, there is underhanded dealings, or the tournament is set up poorly. All of these are bad and two of them are preventable, tournament setup being the easiest to control.
Our suggestion is a result that we think the tournament is not set up optimally and we would like to see a small change.
|
On June 09 2011 15:09 Wren wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 14:11 don_kyuhote wrote:
I guess the real question is "how do we know the winner of the open bracket is the worst player of the 16 people and thus get the 16th seed?"
I guess there isn't an objective way to find out. That's exactly the right question to ask. If the tournament field was already the best 50 players, then anyone who got through the open tournament would be certain to be the 16 seed. However, because of the huge flux in talent pools currently, and the NASL field not including all the best players already, there is the risk that the open tournament is similar to MLG (which gave us July). Here are a couple of scenarios that illustrate the range of possibilities available: ~Open tournament is won by some mid-masters player who got really hot/had a couple handy cheeses. Such a player's success is temporary, no question he/she is the worst rated player of the 16. ~Open tournament is won by a pro. There's a huge range of professional gamers who weren't in the NASL league play, and they include a number who could easily be considered the best player in the finals (a few off the top of my head: Bomber, MMA, somebody from IM, a ton of other Koreans, Jinro, Huk, ThorZain, White-Ra, Dimaga). So now it's entirely possible that the best two players would have to play each other in the first round! [disclaimer: I have absolutely no idea who's playing in the open tournament. All names above are for illustration only.] tl;dr: As long as you can't guarantee that the best 50 players interested in the NASL played in the league months, you're not going to guarantee that the open winning is actually the lowest seed.
This open winner is indeed very unpredictable. Unpredictable is a bad concept when you pair them with your top seed. By seeding the open winner as 11th you protect your top seed from the unpredictable outcome. Whether or not the open winner is 11th or 16th in skill doesn't matter, you are protecting your top seeds from the worst case scenario.
It would be bad, but possible for the open winner to play the top seed in the first round and the open winner be favored in the matchup. We care a lot less who is favored in 6th vs 11th. Also, the top seed is definitely favored over lowest seed from league play from known results.
|
Judging where to insert the open tournament winner into the final bracket is definitely a tough decision to make.
As others have said, the range of possible open tournament winners is wide, it could be Bomber/DeMuslim, it could be Baz/Zeerax (no offense, guys).
I'm... actually not sure how to handle this.
On June 09 2011 15:17 WGarrison wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 15:09 Wren wrote:On June 09 2011 14:11 don_kyuhote wrote:
I guess the real question is "how do we know the winner of the open bracket is the worst player of the 16 people and thus get the 16th seed?"
I guess there isn't an objective way to find out. That's exactly the right question to ask. If the tournament field was already the best 50 players, then anyone who got through the open tournament would be certain to be the 16 seed. However, because of the huge flux in talent pools currently, and the NASL field not including all the best players already, there is the risk that the open tournament is similar to MLG (which gave us July). Here are a couple of scenarios that illustrate the range of possibilities available: ~Open tournament is won by some mid-masters player who got really hot/had a couple handy cheeses. Such a player's success is temporary, no question he/she is the worst rated player of the 16. ~Open tournament is won by a pro. There's a huge range of professional gamers who weren't in the NASL league play, and they include a number who could easily be considered the best player in the finals (a few off the top of my head: Bomber, MMA, somebody from IM, a ton of other Koreans, Jinro, Huk, ThorZain, White-Ra, Dimaga). So now it's entirely possible that the best two players would have to play each other in the first round! [disclaimer: I have absolutely no idea who's playing in the open tournament. All names above are for illustration only.] tl;dr: As long as you can't guarantee that the best 50 players interested in the NASL played in the league months, you're not going to guarantee that the open winning is actually the lowest seed. This open winner is indeed very unpredictable. Unpredictable is a bad concept when you pair them with your top seed. By seeding the open winner as 11th you protect your top seed from the unpredictable outcome. Whether or not the open winner is 11th or 16th in skill doesn't matter, you are protecting your top seeds from the worst case scenario.
It would be bad, but possible for the open winner to play the top seed and be favored in the matchup. We care a lot less who is favored in 6th vs 11th.
You make a fair point.
Actually, you make a very good point.
|
Definitely: the more middling the open champion's seed, the safer.
However, I actually think that the biggest strength of MLG was the structure of the loser's bracket. Those who didn't show so well had to prove themselves more often, but everyone was pretty much on the same level. Until talent and game balance becomes less volatile and you can implement a system like OSL, it's probably the best way to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
