EPTEx:
#1 Seed picks #14 Seed
#2 Seed picks #3 Seed
#4 Seed picks # 10 Seed
And so on...
Issue with NASL First Seed vs Open Winner - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Zeiryuu
Philippines231 Posts
Ex: #1 Seed picks #14 Seed #2 Seed picks #3 Seed #4 Seed picks # 10 Seed And so on... | ||
|
elsemyano
United States33 Posts
On June 09 2011 16:18 BahamutIIX wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On June 09 2011 15:55 WGarrison wrote: Unfortunately what you describe is the opposite of what tournaments want. You want the championship caliber match to be the finals, not the Ro16 match. For example, you want to see the two best NFL teams play in the superbowl, not the divisional playoffs. More people watch the finals/superbowl, therefore the best match should be there. That is a good point. I hadn't quite thought about it that way. My view still stands with the point that there will be a possible high end game on the first day. The thing is that even if the open bracket player takes out the 1st seeded player, it doesn't really effect the end quality of the tournament. It wouldn't really change even if they just seeded in another player instead of holding the open tournament. The hard thing is that this is a highly theoretical convo. We are expecting a super high end player to make it through the open tournament. There is not doubt that this could happen, but, with a 1024 person tournament, anything can really happen. I think it just gives the viewers a chance to see a really good match on the first day of comp in the playoffs that will show the best player making it through to go on and finish their stay in the tournament. Also, just because we have a possible big match on the first day doesn't mean that the finals itself is going to be horrible. This is just a very hypothetical convo and it really is hard to setup a prediction set for this tournament. I would love it though if NASL had a set up for a double bracket tournament with a winners and losers bracket. I think that would probably be the best solution to any situation this may cause with the original brackets. Though I may be completely wrong. The 1st seed at the end of the league matches, having worked hard to earn his position, should have the biggest advantage going into the playoffs (hence the whole concept of 1st - strongest vs. 16th - weakest). Pitting him against the open bracket winner poses several problems, including the fact that the open tournament winner is a total wild card until the entire tournament is played out. This means that the NASL winner will have the least amount of time to prepare for the matchup and may have to play a very strong opponent, putting him in a disadvantageous position and triggering the question "Why would anyone want to be the #1 seed going into the playoffs?" By seeding the open tournament winner at 11th, the players that did not win their divisions/ had to claw their way into the playoffs get placed 12th-16th, while the division leaders stay at the top at 1st - 10th. This means 1st place plays theoretically the weakest player to qualify for the playoffs from the league and thus has the biggest advantage. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
On June 09 2011 15:01 WGarrison wrote: 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. Shit posts like this the one below. On June 09 2011 11:28 Kraznaya wrote: This just underlines NASL's stupidity in general. They invited people like Artosis, Grubby, Painuser, etc. when they clearly weren't the top 50 players in the world, and now you have problems like these. Sorry I'm just in a bad mood and seeing that was louder to me then other peoples suggestions. | ||
|
MyNameIsAlex
Greece827 Posts
 Maybe then they choose to revise this stupid rule | ||
|
Art_of_Kill
Zaire1232 Posts
On June 09 2011 11:18 h3nG wrote: Lemme ask you this...would you rather play the 16th seed in NASL or MMA if he signs up and ends up winning the open tournament? Just a thought... since each round you pass gives u money, yes everyone would prefer a "weaker" opponent | ||
|
Irave
United States9965 Posts
| ||
|
Cosmos
Belgium1077 Posts
| ||
|
piegasm
United States266 Posts
Even if you were silly enough to decide you were going to give the open bracket winner a higher seed, how would you know which seed they deserved? The other 15 players have however many weeks worth of results in the league by which they're ranked. The open bracket winner doesn't have that so your idea is to do what? Just make a judgement call after the open bracket is done? You've got people like TLO, Moonglade, Machine, Socke who have less than stellar results in their divisions but are quite capable of taking wins off of anyone else in the NASL. Say that unknown player gets through the open bracket. Are you going to walk up to one of those guys and say this random who dumb-lucked his way through the open bracket gets a higher seed than you? And which seed do you give him? And what do you base that decision on? It's all good and well to say the person who gets through the open bracket will be a dangerous player. The problem is there's no empirical way to determine which seed they should get if not the last one on the grounds that they didn't participate in the main league. To make an analogy to other tournament based things: tennis. Say a top player, Novak Djokavic or Andy Murray maybe, gets injured and can't play for a while. Their ranking falls. When they're ready to come back, their ranking has slipped and they just miss being the 32nd and final seed at Wimbledon. Brackets get drawn and Novak/Andy gets matched against Rafael Nadal 1st round. Sucks to be both players, absolutely. Sucks to be the fans who bought 2nd week Centre Court tickets because they won't be seeing one of these guys. Practically speaking you know that this player is better than 33rd in the world, but he doesn't have results which bear that out so here he is playing Rafa in the 1st round. | ||
|
archangel2
76 Posts
On June 09 2011 20:52 piegasm wrote: Sooooo....what exactly would be the justification for giving the open bracket winner a higher seed than players who competed in the main league? The winner of the open bracket might be a player every bit as good as anyone in the main league. Or it could be a lesser player nobody has ever heard of who skates through because a top player loses early and leaves a big hole in their portion of the bracket. Even if you were silly enough to decide you were going to give the open bracket winner a higher seed, how would you know which seed they deserved? The other 15 players have however many weeks worth of results in the league by which they're ranked. The open bracket winner doesn't have that so your idea is to do what? Just make a judgement call after the open bracket is done? You've got people like TLO, Moonglade, Machine, Socke who have less than stellar results in their divisions but are quite capable of taking wins off of anyone else in the NASL. Say that unknown player gets through the open bracket. Are you going to walk up to one of those guys and say this random who dumb-lucked his way through the open bracket gets a higher seed than you? And which seed do you give him? And what do you base that decision on? It's all good and well to say the person who gets through the open bracket will be a dangerous player. The problem is there's no empirical way to determine which seed they should get if not the last one on the grounds that they didn't participate in the main league. To make an analogy to other tournament based things: tennis. Say a top player, Novak Djokavic or Andy Murray maybe, gets injured and can't play for a while. Their ranking falls. When they're ready to come back, their ranking has slipped and they just miss being the 32nd and final seed at Wimbledon. Brackets get drawn and Novak/Andy gets matched against Rafael Nadal 1st round. Sucks to be both players, absolutely. Sucks to be the fans who bought 2nd week Centre Court tickets because they won't be seeing one of these guys. Practically speaking you know that this player is better than 33rd in the world, but he doesn't have results which bear that out so here he is playing Rafa in the 1st round. You can make an estimation off the "expected quality" of the player. Also, the element of uncertainty argued numerous times in posts above mine is a very solid argument. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
| ||
|
shell
Portugal2722 Posts
If you want to win you have to beat everyone. | ||
|
brentsen
1252 Posts
| ||
|
piegasm
United States266 Posts
On June 09 2011 22:41 archangel2 wrote: You can make an estimation off the "expected quality" of the player. Also, the element of uncertainty argued numerous times in posts above mine is a very solid argument. Did you actually comprehend any of what I said? There is no objective way to determine the "expected quality" of a player. In addition, what would be the point of playing all this out over the course of several months if NASL is just going to come along at the end and "estimate" how good everyone is? | ||
|
PtM
89 Posts
On June 09 2011 23:07 piegasm wrote: Did you actually comprehend any of what I said? There is no objective way to determine the "expected quality" of a player. You try that and you get a complete shit storm, especially in the event that you get a surprise winner of the open bracket. I don't know what legwork you think "objective" is doing here, but you can certainly make reasonable assumptions about the quality of the player to make it through the open bracket. First consider a very simplified scenario: the open bracket consists exclusively of the players currently in GSL Code S. Can we make any assumptions then, or is it still an utter crapshoot? Obviously, that's not the scenario we're working with, but it should at least show you that there's no problem with estimating the quality of the winner in principle. At that point it becomes a question of who we expect to sign up, and the effect that we think randomness will have on the outcome. Given that this is a tournament with a huge prize pool, I think it's very safe to assume that all the top players that can play will choose to do so. I'll add the caveat that some of the players in Korea may choose not to play due to lag, though I doubt this will dissuade many of them. Moreover, as we've seen from MLG open brackets, the pro players actually win very consistently against good-but-not-pro players. I always thought that many pros would be knocked out by fluky cheese strategies due to the sheer number of games they needed to play, but we've seen from both MLG Dallas and MLG Columbus that the pro players advance with remarkable consistency, rarely being eliminated by anyone other than another pro player. All this to say: the winner of the open tournament is probably going to be extremely good. We can't know exactly how good, but it will almost certainly be a professional player from somewhere, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a top Korean player there. As the OP (and others) have argued in this thread, it's a bad thing for the tournament if the first match of the tournament is likely to eliminate one of the best players in it. The best solution that I've seen is to seed the player somewhere in the middle of the pack. It insures against the scenario I outlined above, but it also doesn't give the open winner an especially privileged position. And I'd like to stress that nobody is advocating picking and choosing the bracket based on how good we think the players are after the results are in. The goal is to construct a tournament which is likely to produce these outcomes. The idea of seeding people through league play is a good method of achieving this -- the better players are more likely to win in their league games, so they will be seeded higher. But we have very good reason to assume that the winner of the open tournament will be better than many of those players, so it's good tournament design to seed them higher than #16. With respect to your tennis analogy: that's simply a case of randomness having an impact on the outcome. The system is still designed to produce the right outcome, and that's all we're trying to achieve by amending this seeding rule. Nobody is saying "MC had lag issues so he's actually a better player than his results suggest. Let's seed him higher!" They're saying "the open bracket winner is probably going to be an exceptional player, so it makes sense to seed him higher." | ||
|
CursedFeanor
Canada539 Posts
What's most surprising to me is that the NASL overall has a very nice and solid system... how could they miss something that obvious??? | ||
|
stOrpse
United States175 Posts
| ||
|
alexhard
Sweden317 Posts
On June 10 2011 00:17 Q(-_-Q wrote: It's because anyone seeded through playing for weeks and weeks in the NASL should be rewarded. They put more work in. But they aren't. The #1 seed is probably playing the toughest opponent, which is the opposite of what a) you are saying, b) should be happening. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
Many tournaments with money for number 2 will use a double elimination bracket to eliminate seeding-errors. In NASL there is some kind of prize for top 15 (+1)? That puts a lot of pressure on assuring a fair seed-system. As I see it NASL has chosen a decent true, tried and tested system for the playoff. Yes, it is not the most fair system and no, you can never make it perfectly fair anyway. Just calling them out on the winner of the open tournament having a tough opponent is not the way to go without giving better alternative solutions. As I see it the following changes are the possible improvements: - The highest seeded players can choose their opponent from the rest of the qualified players. In Korea that has been tried in some way for groups and resulted in groups of death because the best players want the hardest opponent as early as possible. - The winner of the open tournament will be put into the tournament at an earlier state. Generally you want to avoid extra games and when should he enter and more important: instead of whom? - The format of the whole tournament is changed. How is up to the user. Be creative! Arguing the most fair way to improve this inconvenience will give a far better discussion than just throwing mud at Incontrol and him giving back... | ||
|
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
I think the top players will loose there last game on purpose to dont get nr.1 because its way better for them to get nr2-4. a system that force you to loose a game to have better position is a bad system. I dont really get why nr.1 of the open tournament should get a seat in this session. Just make qualifier tournaments for next session like all others. | ||
|
Fleebenworth
463 Posts
| ||
| ||
