|
On June 09 2011 23:50 PtM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 23:07 piegasm wrote:On June 09 2011 22:41 archangel2 wrote: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. 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."
The top 15 players from the main league are definitely going to be exceptional players, who've participated in the league for its entirety and earned a position based on their results as compared to everyone else's results. We know this because all the people currently participating are well known pros who have proven themselves both in the NASL and outside. The open bracket winner will probably be an exceptional player as well but could be a fluke. And you want to seed him higher than half the field based on "probably" and call that fair.
Even if the open bracket winner is a pro himself, on what grounds do you assume he's a better pro than the people he's going to out-seed? However good he is, why does he deserve to take precedence over players who competed in the main league and earned their results? The way I see it, someone with no results in a league doesn't deserve to be seeded higher in the playoffs of said league than someone who does have results.
It's pretty silly to argue that the open bracket winner might be some unknown terrible player. The NASL bracketing system is needlessly complex and produces wonky results - as noted. The ideal solution just seems to have the open bracket winner play in the pre-tournament seeding matches with the other players.
Nobody is saying terrible. Everyone in the world who is good isn't necessarily known. Flukes happen. When the top players in an event lose early, that makes room for lesser players to squeak through where they otherwise wouldn't have had a chance. It's not likely but it's a possible eventuality that, IMO needs to be accounted for.
|
The open bracket narrows down to an eventual winner, therefore you have ready made structure of the weakest->strongest open bracket players. Seeding/points available for joining would hardly be defficult to assign.
Seems kind of silly to me - there is no logic on not putting #1 pool stage seed against the lowest players promoted from open bracket.
|
I actually do not like this because of other reasons. Open tournament is what, 1024 players?
A person that manages to actually go through that without losing should be given a bit more slack then fighting instantly against a first seed from NASL season 1.
Personally I feel fighting against a bigger number of tops players in Open tournament with games being one after another without time for any preparations is tougher then 9 games they normally play in a group (not to mention they do not need to win all 9 to be the best; they can probably do that with 8:1 or even with 7:2)
|
Kraznaya your a disgrace to all chinese gamers. People including myself voted for players like Artosis and Grubby to be in the NASL. People wanted to see them play. I thought it was a brilliant move for NASL to give viewers a chance to see their favorite players play, regardless of what arbitrary player ranking people like yourself would have in their simple mind. Please do us all a favor and stfu for the sake of China and all chinese immigrants living in North America.
|
Personally, I would rather see 2 strong players go head to head for an exciting than see a poorly match making with uninteresting games no matter if they came from a seeding or an open bracket.
|
On June 10 2011 01:36 jacobmarlow wrote:
Kraznaya your a disgrace to all chinese gamers. People including myself voted for players like Artosis and Grubby to be in the NASL. People wanted to see them play. I thought it was a brilliant move for NASL to give viewers a chance to see their favorite players play, regardless of what arbitrary player ranking people like yourself would have in their simple mind. Please do us all a favor and stfu for the sake of China and all chinese immigrants living in North America.
lol, I find it ironic that you say one persons (albeit stupid) comment is a disgrace to the single largest people group in the world, implying something even more ignorant then what he wrote. I'm sure ''Kraznaya'' didn't write his post with the burden of all Chinese gamers and Chinese American immigrants on his shoulders, Much like you didn't write yours to represent all of Canada.
To get back on topic; I also don't see how people are saying you put the open bracket winner higher then 16th? The 50 NASL pros played all season to get as good of a seed as possible in the playoffs, and you want to just arbitrarily throw someone in the middle of the playoffs where you ''think'' it would be fair for him and the rest of the bracket, that's not how things work.
Like someone else stated, even if this guy loses in the first round he's already won a place in next seasons NASL as well as travel to the NASL event which is a treat in itself.
I am not sure why people don't just watch and enjoy this event and how it unfolds as I'm sure either way it will be exciting, I'm sure if at the end of it all it is obvious that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way it all works out ( in regards to the open bracket winner being in the round of 16 ) the NASL will willingly change it and improve upon it for season 2.
|
Well in theory they have the 50 best players around (I know this isn't true but it's what they said at the beggining) so to say that the 16th/50 player is weaker than any random opponent is contradictory to the structure of the tournament. However I do agree that it could end up being bad to be the 1st seed, however you can also say that if somebody like Idra or MC ends up rank 16th (I'm not sure how the seeding works but those players may be in the playoffs so I presume there is a realistic chance of that) that could also be harder than the open bracket, so I think in the end there is a lot of chance but a change of rules will not change that and is unnecessary.
|
Holy crap do a lot of you like to whine about pointless crap! There is no way you can seed the winner of the open tournament higher then a player who played for 9 weeks to earn their spot. You guys keep saying how is it fair if the winner of the open tournament is someone like MMA? First off life isn't fair. Second what if it's some scrub who 6pools every single game to win the tournament? There is no way of knowing who will win and you can do seeding based on who wins the tournament. You have to assume that the top 15 that EARNED their spot are the 15 best players.
|
On June 10 2011 01:53 Ziktomini wrote:
Well in theory they have the 50 best players around (I know this isn't true but it's what they said at the beggining) so to say that the 16th/50 player is weaker than any random opponent is contradictory to the structure of the tournament. However I do agree that it could end up being bad to be the 1st seed, however you can also say that if somebody like Idra or MC ends up rank 16th (I'm not sure how the seeding works but those players may be in the playoffs so I presume there is a realistic chance of that) that could also be harder than the open bracket, so I think in the end there is a lot of chance but a change of rules will not change that and is unnecessary.
This is true, but NASL having the top50 players in the world is so far from the truth that they should have taken that into account when making the system.
|
After slaughtering his way through the Open tournament the winner have to face the top seed, which should be relatively tougher than the 16th seed... I do feel somewhat sorry for him.
|
On June 10 2011 02:07 Longshank wrote:
This is true, but NASL having the top50 players in the world is so far from the truth that they should have taken that into account when making the system.
It doesn't matter if it's true or not. The open tournament winner is a complete unknown and even if it is a known player there is no plausible way to PROVE that they are a better player then anyone in the top 15.
|
On June 10 2011 02:09 dmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 02:07 Longshank wrote:
This is true, but NASL having the top50 players in the world is so far from the truth that they should have taken that into account when making the system. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. The open tournament winner is a complete unknown and even if it is a known player there is no plausible way to PROVE that they are a better player then anyone in the top 15.
Okay we'll see if people agree with this sentiment if Nestea or a similarly skilled player wins the online qualifier.
I really liked the idea of letting the #1 seed choose his his opponent, then letting #2 choose his until all of the matches are set. I think it leads to a really cool dynamic and should be considered. If you're going to have a convoluted set up in the first place you might as well be all the way convoluted.
I mean really... why not have 4 divisions of 12 players or something, cut the league off at 48 for next season and take the top 4 from each league for the playoffs... simple, clean, resembles REAL sports. I dont see why their are 3 different criteria for making the playoffs in this league... its like they bent over backwards to avoid the conversation that "X Division is harder than Y division", but that conversation takes place in literally every sport.
NASL "bracketology", for lack of a better term, has been so confusing that it completely removed the whole sensation found in REAL sports of just following your team throughout the season (not just during the last week or two when all the "if, then" statements came out about the results of the league games) and watching them jockey for the playoff spots.
|
If you're a number one seed it shouldn't matter who you face first round, you should be able to beat anyone thrown in your way. Same goes for the open bracket since everyone seems to think that if that player was put in group play he'd be the one seed.
|
On June 10 2011 02:34 Jayrod wrote:
Okay we'll see if people agree with this sentiment if Nestea or a similarly skilled player wins the online qualifier.
I really liked the idea of letting the #1 seed choose his his opponent, then letting #2 choose his until all of the matches are set. I think it leads to a really cool dynamic and should be considered. If you're going to have a convoluted set up in the first place you might as well be all the way convoluted.
I mean really... why not have 4 divisions of 12 players or something, cut the league off at 48 for next season and take the top 4 from each league for the playoffs... simple, clean, resembles REAL sports. I dont see why their are 3 different criteria for making the playoffs in this league... its like they bent over backwards to avoid the conversation that "X Division is harder than Y division", but that conversation takes place in literally every sport.
NASL "bracketology", for lack of a better term, has been so confusing that it completely removed the whole sensation found in REAL sports of just following your team throughout the season (not just during the last week or two when all the "if, then" statements came out about the results of the league games) and watching them jockey for the playoff spots.
And if someone like me wins, that is completely awful?
I actually really like that idea as well. I can see a few small issues with it like the top players only having to play their best matchup or something but the idea in general is pretty cool.
|
I think the solution is pretty obvious. Have a style similar to msl where players pick who is in their group, and highest seeds get the most power to decide the group (whether by picking first, or being able to move people around).
This way it is in the #1 seed's hands to decide if he wants to play the open bracket winner or not.
On June 10 2011 02:42 RmoteCntrld wrote:
If you're a number one seed it shouldn't matter who you face first round, you should be able to beat anyone thrown in your way. Same goes for the open bracket since everyone seems to think that if that player was put in group play he'd be the one seed.
That's not the point. The goal of any tournament is to have the best players and the most exciting match in the finals. Obviously this doesn't always happen, but the finals always gets the most viewers and defines a tournament. For example a Jaedong/Yellow finals is remembered as a bad tournament (regardless of who played who in the round of 16), while a Jaedong/Flash finals is remembered as a great tournament (barring power issues). If you have your best players eliminated early you lose a lot of momentum and viewer interest early. Doing this is much more in NASL's interest than it is even for the players.
|
On June 09 2011 11:51 sc2guy wrote:Show nested quote +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. Read NASL.
Why do you think this is an intelligent observation, when there are something like 8 players in the league from Asia, and nearly half are from Europe
NA basically refers to where the games are hosted, not where the players are from
|
On June 10 2011 02:42 RmoteCntrld wrote:
If you're a number one seed it shouldn't matter who you face first round, you should be able to beat anyone thrown in your way. Same goes for the open bracket since everyone seems to think that if that player was put in group play he'd be the one seed.
If a player like NesTea or Bomber goes through the open bracket (and I will take the odds a top Korean will win the open bracket), they will smash the #1 NASL seed
|
On June 10 2011 02:50 War Horse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 02:42 RmoteCntrld wrote:
If you're a number one seed it shouldn't matter who you face first round, you should be able to beat anyone thrown in your way. Same goes for the open bracket since everyone seems to think that if that player was put in group play he'd be the one seed. If a player like NesTea or Bomber goes through the open bracket (and I will take the odds a top Korean will win the open bracket), they will smash the #1 NASL seed
Just like Nestea or MC would SMASH Thorzain in the TSL...oh wait. Making assumptions like that after some of the huge upsets that recently happened is pretty pointless.
|
Totally agree with OP. This is so ridiculous, the first seed who is supposed to get the easiest opponent will either get a top Korean like MKP, MVP or whatever if they attend or people like Kas, Nerchio, Thorzain lol
It's just so much better to be second, third or fourth that the first has to consider losing his last match on purpose to not get first, which always sucks for everyone obviously.
|
On June 10 2011 02:56 Ragoo wrote:
Totally agree with OP. This is so ridiculous, the first seed who is supposed to get the easiest opponent will either get a top Korean like MKP, MVP or whatever if they attend or people like Kas, Nerchio, Thorzain lol
It's just so much better to be second, third or fourth that the first has to consider losing his last match on purpose to not get first, which always sucks for everyone obviously.
To be fair, there's no guarantee that the second, third or fourth spot is going to be any easier. For instance, the second seed could very well end up facing someone like Zenio or IdrA depending how Division 5 shakes up.
I know we all want to seeding to be as fair as possible, but as someone said before, this is the nature of sports. If a great player is sick or has an emergency for a few games, he can easily drop down in standings and be playing from a lower ranking.
While I agree that NASL should try to continue to improve the system, they haven't even played through one season yet. And it will never be perfect, no matter what they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
