|
I think it is incredibly silly to refer to someone as "the better player" I would say that in the last GSL season Genius WAS the better player over MarineKing
The player who wins in the first battle already has an advantage. In the case of Genius vs MKP MKP's advantage was that he could potentially win the group in the next match, Genius' disadvantage was that he faced elimination in the next match and then in the Final Match(vs MKP) he had to play back to back games
Game 1(Genius vs MKP)
Game 2(Random1 vs Random2)
Game 3(MKP vs Random1)
Game 4(Genius vs Random2)
Game 5(Genius vs MKP)
In the GSL format MKP also got a rest in the losers match. I also absolutely despise extended series in MLG as well as an advantage has already been gained by the player who wins in the winner bracket as they get to lose a match before going out of the whole tournament, in pools winning gives you an advantage of bolstering your score for Championship Sunday and making you appear further up the bracket. People say "BUT YOU CAN'T COMPARE E-SPORTEU TO REAL SPORTS" but in this case it is perfectly comparable as it is not the specifics of the ruleset which are being compared but the simple fact that no other sport or tournament on earth uses it. But fuck it it worked for Halo it must work for SC2+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 15 2012 11:49 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:46 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:33 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:27 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:12 Bazinga wrote:
From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points
From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages
Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it? What? In basketball, you win positional advantages to score these points, which in turns wins you the game. you win 4 games in a Bo7 set to advance to the next round of the playoff. 1) positional advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance In sc2 you win these positional/upgrade advantages to win you the games, which if you win 2/3 games, you win a set. you win 2 sets to advance to the next round. 1) advantages 2) games 3) sets 4) win 2 sets to advance see, same layer. Basketball 1) advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance Starcraft 2 1) advantages 2) NULL 3) games 4) wins the set to advance is what i can agree with because 1) and 2) are gained within a game that is why I packed them together. You can not compare points to games because a game is enveloping the whole amount of time that is played within it and a point/advantage is sth gained within that amount of time Huh? But we're not comparing them one to one directly, we're comparing the number of layers these 2 have in total. They both have a 3 layer scoring system, simple as that. Advantages is not a scoring system because you can not quantified that. Another very very simple way to look at this is to treat each games as "points" or "scores" like in every other sports.
In Basketball for example, the points you get in the game is solely for measuring who wins that game. The score never carries over to the next game. The only advantage of getting more score is to win the game, and by winning the games, you get a permanent advantage of being one step closer to winning the tournament.
This is the same in Hockey, in Football, in Tennis, in soccer, in every sport. You're trying to argue that in the NBA, if Lakers beats Celtics in game 1 by a score of 90-40, then Celtics came back and won game 2 and 3 both by 89-90, Lakers should win the series? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? And neither does it make sense for SC Here you are comparing them one to one directly and that is why the discussion about that topic started. In this example it is Lakers 1 - 2 Celtics and 288 - 220. Genius 2 - 3 MKP is the equivalent to 1 - 2 not the equivalent to 288 - 220. do you understand now why i disagreed? Genius 2 - 3 MKP is equivalent to 288 -220, not in a direct term, I was just using it as a direct comparison to their first layer, I'm not saying the first layer is the exact same technical substance. Fact of the matter is, both has 3 layer system. You must score points in all 3 layers to advance. None of these points from the lower layer ever carries over to their next meeting. The fact that you can not find any other sports or tournament or competitive formats in the world that uses extended series aside from MLG, is a pretty big anecdotal prove in itself that it isn't the best measure of fairness. There is no such thing like anecdotal proof and in my opinion you can't compare points and games because they do not have the same characteristics. It would be like comparing apples and oranges just because both things are fruits.
Anecdotal evidence can definitely be used as proves. It's actually what part of our common law system is based around. And I mean, true, it isn't like ABSOLUTE concrete proofs if that is what you technically meant. But it still shows that there must be a reason that no other competition in the world, over the entire life-span of our civilization, have thought about using this extended series system, if it's that fair and if it actually helps find the better players like you said.
|
On April 15 2012 11:49 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:44 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if
A's record is
3-2 vs B
0-2 vs C
While B is
2-3 vs A
2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period. Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL. The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair. The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head? The proposition of the OP only regards the GSL group stage format which is the setting where I think an extended series rule would be the correct thing to do. Using a gsl like format for bigger groups would be inherently unfair in my opinion which is why I think that such a setting is irrelevant. The GSL group stage is the exact same idea as my extreme example tho. Instead of having 10 people, and each having to play 5, they have 4 people and each has to play 2. A has head to head lead vs B, but B has beaten others in the group while A hasn't. It my extreme example, B beaten 4 others, while A lost to 4 others. In the GSL example, B beaten 1 other, while A lost to 1 other. It's the same concept, I just expanded it to a more extreme case to try to let you see why you can't ignore the other games in the group and only look at their head to head and determine who should advance.
Ok, i'll play along. . . If you are in a group of ten players and A and B are both at 4-4 while C through J are already assigned to ranks 1-4 and 7-10 you actually have to use a head to head comparison like you do in the gsl format because nothing will ever change the relation of A and B to ranks 1-4 and 7-10. The only thing that changes is the relation between A and B.
|
On April 15 2012 11:54 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:49 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:46 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:33 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:27 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:12 Bazinga wrote:
From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points
From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages
Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it? What? In basketball, you win positional advantages to score these points, which in turns wins you the game. you win 4 games in a Bo7 set to advance to the next round of the playoff. 1) positional advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance In sc2 you win these positional/upgrade advantages to win you the games, which if you win 2/3 games, you win a set. you win 2 sets to advance to the next round. 1) advantages 2) games 3) sets 4) win 2 sets to advance see, same layer. Basketball 1) advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance Starcraft 2 1) advantages 2) NULL 3) games 4) wins the set to advance is what i can agree with because 1) and 2) are gained within a game that is why I packed them together. You can not compare points to games because a game is enveloping the whole amount of time that is played within it and a point/advantage is sth gained within that amount of time Huh? But we're not comparing them one to one directly, we're comparing the number of layers these 2 have in total. They both have a 3 layer scoring system, simple as that. Advantages is not a scoring system because you can not quantified that. Another very very simple way to look at this is to treat each games as "points" or "scores" like in every other sports.
In Basketball for example, the points you get in the game is solely for measuring who wins that game. The score never carries over to the next game. The only advantage of getting more score is to win the game, and by winning the games, you get a permanent advantage of being one step closer to winning the tournament.
This is the same in Hockey, in Football, in Tennis, in soccer, in every sport. You're trying to argue that in the NBA, if Lakers beats Celtics in game 1 by a score of 90-40, then Celtics came back and won game 2 and 3 both by 89-90, Lakers should win the series? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? And neither does it make sense for SC Here you are comparing them one to one directly and that is why the discussion about that topic started. In this example it is Lakers 1 - 2 Celtics and 288 - 220. Genius 2 - 3 MKP is the equivalent to 1 - 2 not the equivalent to 288 - 220. do you understand now why i disagreed? Genius 2 - 3 MKP is equivalent to 288 -220, not in a direct term, I was just using it as a direct comparison to their first layer, I'm not saying the first layer is the exact same technical substance. Fact of the matter is, both has 3 layer system. You must score points in all 3 layers to advance. None of these points from the lower layer ever carries over to their next meeting. The fact that you can not find any other sports or tournament or competitive formats in the world that uses extended series aside from MLG, is a pretty big anecdotal prove in itself that it isn't the best measure of fairness. There is no such thing like anecdotal proof and in my opinion you can't compare points and games because they do not have the same characteristics. It would be like comparing apples and oranges just because both things are fruits. Anecdotal evidence can definitely be used as proves. It's actually what part of our common law system is based around. And I mean, true, it isn't like ABSOLUTE concrete proofs if that is what you technically meant. But it still shows that there must be a reason that no other competition in the world, over the entire life-span of our civilization, have thought about using this extended series system, if it's that fair and if it actually helps find the better players like you said.
Law and science are two very different things, and I do believe that in this case science applies and not law :p. The reason might just be that there is no other sport like starcraft 2 or that traditions persist longer than they should . . . like they always have.
|
On April 15 2012 11:54 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:49 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:44 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if
A's record is
3-2 vs B
0-2 vs C
While B is
2-3 vs A
2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period. Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL. The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair. The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head? The proposition of the OP only regards the GSL group stage format which is the setting where I think an extended series rule would be the correct thing to do. Using a gsl like format for bigger groups would be inherently unfair in my opinion which is why I think that such a setting is irrelevant. The GSL group stage is the exact same idea as my extreme example tho. Instead of having 10 people, and each having to play 5, they have 4 people and each has to play 2. A has head to head lead vs B, but B has beaten others in the group while A hasn't. It my extreme example, B beaten 4 others, while A lost to 4 others. In the GSL example, B beaten 1 other, while A lost to 1 other. It's the same concept, I just expanded it to a more extreme case to try to let you see why you can't ignore the other games in the group and only look at their head to head and determine who should advance. Ok, i'll play along. . . If you are in a group of ten players and A and B are both at 4-4 while C through J are already assigned to ranks 1-4 and 7-10 you actually have to use a head to head comparison like you do in the gsl format because nothing will ever change the relation of A and B to ranks 1-4 and 7-10. The only thing that changes is the relation between A and B.
Or the 2nd option, to play a tie-breaker set, which is what GSL chose to do.
With your way of doing it, GSL wouldn't need them to play a 2nd time. They would simply go
A vs B: 2-1
B vs C: 2-0
A vs D: 0-2
K at this point, set score for A and B are both 1-1, therefore, we look at their head to head score, which A is 2-1 against B, so A advances (along with D)
|
On April 15 2012 11:57 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:54 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:49 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:44 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if
A's record is
3-2 vs B
0-2 vs C
While B is
2-3 vs A
2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period. Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL. The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair. The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head? The proposition of the OP only regards the GSL group stage format which is the setting where I think an extended series rule would be the correct thing to do. Using a gsl like format for bigger groups would be inherently unfair in my opinion which is why I think that such a setting is irrelevant. The GSL group stage is the exact same idea as my extreme example tho. Instead of having 10 people, and each having to play 5, they have 4 people and each has to play 2. A has head to head lead vs B, but B has beaten others in the group while A hasn't. It my extreme example, B beaten 4 others, while A lost to 4 others. In the GSL example, B beaten 1 other, while A lost to 1 other. It's the same concept, I just expanded it to a more extreme case to try to let you see why you can't ignore the other games in the group and only look at their head to head and determine who should advance. Ok, i'll play along. . . If you are in a group of ten players and A and B are both at 4-4 while C through J are already assigned to ranks 1-4 and 7-10 you actually have to use a head to head comparison like you do in the gsl format because nothing will ever change the relation of A and B to ranks 1-4 and 7-10. The only thing that changes is the relation between A and B. Or the 2nd option, to play a tie-breaker set, which is what GSL chose to do. With your way of doing it, GSL wouldn't need them to play a 2nd time. They would simply go A vs B: 2-1 B vs C: 2-0 A vs D: 0-2 K at this point, set score for A and B are both 1-1, therefore, we look at their head to head score, which A is 2-1 against B, so A advances (along with D)
That would be the first option i mentioned earlier in the thread and i also said why i do not think that this would be good. If you in this case just play a fresh bo3 you ignore that head to head score, which is like discarding that result. If you instead extend the series you do consider the players first match and you generate content and you can be sure that more likely than with just a fresh bo3 the better player advances
|
On April 15 2012 11:57 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:54 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:49 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:46 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:33 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:27 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:12 Bazinga wrote:
From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points
From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages
Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it? What? In basketball, you win positional advantages to score these points, which in turns wins you the game. you win 4 games in a Bo7 set to advance to the next round of the playoff. 1) positional advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance In sc2 you win these positional/upgrade advantages to win you the games, which if you win 2/3 games, you win a set. you win 2 sets to advance to the next round. 1) advantages 2) games 3) sets 4) win 2 sets to advance see, same layer. Basketball 1) advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance Starcraft 2 1) advantages 2) NULL 3) games 4) wins the set to advance is what i can agree with because 1) and 2) are gained within a game that is why I packed them together. You can not compare points to games because a game is enveloping the whole amount of time that is played within it and a point/advantage is sth gained within that amount of time Huh? But we're not comparing them one to one directly, we're comparing the number of layers these 2 have in total. They both have a 3 layer scoring system, simple as that. Advantages is not a scoring system because you can not quantified that. Another very very simple way to look at this is to treat each games as "points" or "scores" like in every other sports.
In Basketball for example, the points you get in the game is solely for measuring who wins that game. The score never carries over to the next game. The only advantage of getting more score is to win the game, and by winning the games, you get a permanent advantage of being one step closer to winning the tournament.
This is the same in Hockey, in Football, in Tennis, in soccer, in every sport. You're trying to argue that in the NBA, if Lakers beats Celtics in game 1 by a score of 90-40, then Celtics came back and won game 2 and 3 both by 89-90, Lakers should win the series? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? And neither does it make sense for SC Here you are comparing them one to one directly and that is why the discussion about that topic started. In this example it is Lakers 1 - 2 Celtics and 288 - 220. Genius 2 - 3 MKP is the equivalent to 1 - 2 not the equivalent to 288 - 220. do you understand now why i disagreed? Genius 2 - 3 MKP is equivalent to 288 -220, not in a direct term, I was just using it as a direct comparison to their first layer, I'm not saying the first layer is the exact same technical substance. Fact of the matter is, both has 3 layer system. You must score points in all 3 layers to advance. None of these points from the lower layer ever carries over to their next meeting. The fact that you can not find any other sports or tournament or competitive formats in the world that uses extended series aside from MLG, is a pretty big anecdotal prove in itself that it isn't the best measure of fairness. There is no such thing like anecdotal proof and in my opinion you can't compare points and games because they do not have the same characteristics. It would be like comparing apples and oranges just because both things are fruits. Anecdotal evidence can definitely be used as proves. It's actually what part of our common law system is based around. And I mean, true, it isn't like ABSOLUTE concrete proofs if that is what you technically meant. But it still shows that there must be a reason that no other competition in the world, over the entire life-span of our civilization, have thought about using this extended series system, if it's that fair and if it actually helps find the better players like you said. Law and science are two very different things, and I do believe that in this case science applies and not law :p. The reason might just be that there is no other sport like starcraft 2 or that traditions persist longer than they should . . . like they always have. I don't understand how this is more similar to science instead of Law, as we are making a arbitrary rule (not an absolute law of nature rule).
But ok, even using science, a lot statistics is part of science, especially in economics and business (yes economics is a field of science), and that in itself is based around a lot of anecdotal evidence.
And I don't see how there is no other sports like SC2, when it in itself is mainly based around the idea of Chess (or other strategy games), but taking out the turn concept and made it play in real time, hence "real-time strategy" games. And traditions don't prevent sport organizers to implement rules that improves fairness and balance of tournaments. It never has and never will. The fact that extended series is never used in any other competition is simply because it isn't a fair rule.
|
On April 15 2012 12:03 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:57 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:54 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:49 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:44 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if
A's record is
3-2 vs B
0-2 vs C
While B is
2-3 vs A
2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period. Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL. The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair. The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head? The proposition of the OP only regards the GSL group stage format which is the setting where I think an extended series rule would be the correct thing to do. Using a gsl like format for bigger groups would be inherently unfair in my opinion which is why I think that such a setting is irrelevant. The GSL group stage is the exact same idea as my extreme example tho. Instead of having 10 people, and each having to play 5, they have 4 people and each has to play 2. A has head to head lead vs B, but B has beaten others in the group while A hasn't. It my extreme example, B beaten 4 others, while A lost to 4 others. In the GSL example, B beaten 1 other, while A lost to 1 other. It's the same concept, I just expanded it to a more extreme case to try to let you see why you can't ignore the other games in the group and only look at their head to head and determine who should advance. Ok, i'll play along. . . If you are in a group of ten players and A and B are both at 4-4 while C through J are already assigned to ranks 1-4 and 7-10 you actually have to use a head to head comparison like you do in the gsl format because nothing will ever change the relation of A and B to ranks 1-4 and 7-10. The only thing that changes is the relation between A and B. Or the 2nd option, to play a tie-breaker set, which is what GSL chose to do. With your way of doing it, GSL wouldn't need them to play a 2nd time. They would simply go A vs B: 2-1 B vs C: 2-0 A vs D: 0-2 K at this point, set score for A and B are both 1-1, therefore, we look at their head to head score, which A is 2-1 against B, so A advances (along with D) That would be the first option i mentioned earlier in the thread and i also said why i do not think that this would be good. If you in this case just play a fresh bo3 you ignore that head to head score, which is like discarding that result. If you instead extend the series you do consider the players first match and you generate content and you can be sure that more likely than with just a fresh bo3 the better player advances
Right, playing more games is always more accurate determination of better player, that is a given. But it doesn't make the previous less fair. *edit, but do you see how your first option doesn't make any sense? Because A vs D's game would be meaningless and A would automatically advances if B wins against C.
You've said it yourself before, you can NOT ignore the other players that they've played on their different paths of getting to this final point. But extended series by nature ignores that, and only looks at their head to head.
|
On April 15 2012 12:07 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:57 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:54 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:49 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:46 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:33 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:27 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:12 Bazinga wrote:
From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points
From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages
Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it? What? In basketball, you win positional advantages to score these points, which in turns wins you the game. you win 4 games in a Bo7 set to advance to the next round of the playoff. 1) positional advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance In sc2 you win these positional/upgrade advantages to win you the games, which if you win 2/3 games, you win a set. you win 2 sets to advance to the next round. 1) advantages 2) games 3) sets 4) win 2 sets to advance see, same layer. Basketball 1) advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance Starcraft 2 1) advantages 2) NULL 3) games 4) wins the set to advance is what i can agree with because 1) and 2) are gained within a game that is why I packed them together. You can not compare points to games because a game is enveloping the whole amount of time that is played within it and a point/advantage is sth gained within that amount of time Huh? But we're not comparing them one to one directly, we're comparing the number of layers these 2 have in total. They both have a 3 layer scoring system, simple as that. Advantages is not a scoring system because you can not quantified that. Another very very simple way to look at this is to treat each games as "points" or "scores" like in every other sports.
In Basketball for example, the points you get in the game is solely for measuring who wins that game. The score never carries over to the next game. The only advantage of getting more score is to win the game, and by winning the games, you get a permanent advantage of being one step closer to winning the tournament.
This is the same in Hockey, in Football, in Tennis, in soccer, in every sport. You're trying to argue that in the NBA, if Lakers beats Celtics in game 1 by a score of 90-40, then Celtics came back and won game 2 and 3 both by 89-90, Lakers should win the series? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? And neither does it make sense for SC Here you are comparing them one to one directly and that is why the discussion about that topic started. In this example it is Lakers 1 - 2 Celtics and 288 - 220. Genius 2 - 3 MKP is the equivalent to 1 - 2 not the equivalent to 288 - 220. do you understand now why i disagreed? Genius 2 - 3 MKP is equivalent to 288 -220, not in a direct term, I was just using it as a direct comparison to their first layer, I'm not saying the first layer is the exact same technical substance. Fact of the matter is, both has 3 layer system. You must score points in all 3 layers to advance. None of these points from the lower layer ever carries over to their next meeting. The fact that you can not find any other sports or tournament or competitive formats in the world that uses extended series aside from MLG, is a pretty big anecdotal prove in itself that it isn't the best measure of fairness. There is no such thing like anecdotal proof and in my opinion you can't compare points and games because they do not have the same characteristics. It would be like comparing apples and oranges just because both things are fruits. Anecdotal evidence can definitely be used as proves. It's actually what part of our common law system is based around. And I mean, true, it isn't like ABSOLUTE concrete proofs if that is what you technically meant. But it still shows that there must be a reason that no other competition in the world, over the entire life-span of our civilization, have thought about using this extended series system, if it's that fair and if it actually helps find the better players like you said. Law and science are two very different things, and I do believe that in this case science applies and not law :p. The reason might just be that there is no other sport like starcraft 2 or that traditions persist longer than they should . . . like they always have. I don't understand how this is more similar to science instead of Law, as we are making a arbitrary rule (not an absolute law of nature rule). But ok, even using science, a lot statistics is part of science, especially in economics and business (yes economics is a field of science), and that in itself is based around a lot of anecdotal evidence. And I don't see how there is no other sports like SC2, when it in itself is mainly based around the idea of Chess (or other strategy games), but taking out the turn concept and made it play in real time, hence "real-time strategy" games. And traditions don't prevent sport organizers to implement rules that improves fairness and balance of tournaments. It never has and never will. The fact that extended series is never used in any other competition is simply because it isn't a fair rule.
Science applies because we are trying to discuss which rule is the better one to use. And chess might be to starcraft what football is to handegg  . And for a long time no komi was used in go even though it is fairer which falsifies your statement about sports and traditions :p. And the math in both topics I presented earlier shows that the extended series rule does indeed improve the fairness of a tournament.
|
On April 15 2012 12:11 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 12:03 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:57 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:54 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:49 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:44 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:
[quote]
Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL. The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair. The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head? The proposition of the OP only regards the GSL group stage format which is the setting where I think an extended series rule would be the correct thing to do. Using a gsl like format for bigger groups would be inherently unfair in my opinion which is why I think that such a setting is irrelevant. The GSL group stage is the exact same idea as my extreme example tho. Instead of having 10 people, and each having to play 5, they have 4 people and each has to play 2. A has head to head lead vs B, but B has beaten others in the group while A hasn't. It my extreme example, B beaten 4 others, while A lost to 4 others. In the GSL example, B beaten 1 other, while A lost to 1 other. It's the same concept, I just expanded it to a more extreme case to try to let you see why you can't ignore the other games in the group and only look at their head to head and determine who should advance. Ok, i'll play along. . . If you are in a group of ten players and A and B are both at 4-4 while C through J are already assigned to ranks 1-4 and 7-10 you actually have to use a head to head comparison like you do in the gsl format because nothing will ever change the relation of A and B to ranks 1-4 and 7-10. The only thing that changes is the relation between A and B. Or the 2nd option, to play a tie-breaker set, which is what GSL chose to do. With your way of doing it, GSL wouldn't need them to play a 2nd time. They would simply go A vs B: 2-1 B vs C: 2-0 A vs D: 0-2 K at this point, set score for A and B are both 1-1, therefore, we look at their head to head score, which A is 2-1 against B, so A advances (along with D) That would be the first option i mentioned earlier in the thread and i also said why i do not think that this would be good. If you in this case just play a fresh bo3 you ignore that head to head score, which is like discarding that result. If you instead extend the series you do consider the players first match and you generate content and you can be sure that more likely than with just a fresh bo3 the better player advances Right, playing more games is always more accurate determination of better player, that is a given. But it doesn't make the previous less fair. *edit, but do you see how your first option doesn't make any sense? Because A vs D's game would be meaningless and A would automatically advances if B wins against C. You've said it yourself before, you can NOT ignore the other players that they've played on their different paths of getting to this final point. But extended series by nature ignores that, and only looks at their head to head.
My first option does make sense, and A vs D's game makes sense because the relation of B vs D is affected by it because their relation has not been established yet. And i never ignored the other games in the group stage and the extended series rule doesn't either, the only thing it does is give a more precise statement of the relation between player A and B.
|
GSL format is way better than mlg and ipl. Extended series is just awful.
|
No, just because you beat someone once in a BO3 does not mean you are better than him. Every match should start on even footing.
|
On April 15 2012 12:16 Bazinga wrote:
Science applies because we are trying to discuss which rule is the better one to use. Huh? You didn't really explain why. That's just like me saying "Law applies because we are trying to discuss which rule is better one to use."
On April 15 2012 12:16 Bazinga wrote:And chess might be to starcraft what football is to handegg . How the actual game is played doesn't really change the fairness of a simple tournament format. Tournament formats are universal things, it can pretty much be used for every sports or competition out there.
On April 15 2012 12:16 Bazinga wrote:And for a long time no komi was used in go even though it is fairer which falsifies your statement about sports and traditions :p. And the math in both topics I presented earlier shows that the extended series rule does indeed improve the fairness of a tournament. Komi is a very specific rule to a specific sport/game, and I can think of 10 example that a sport/game changed for the better for every one example that you can come up with that they didnt due to tradition.
But what we're talking about is the balance and fairness of a tournament format, very different from specific sport/games. and as I was saying, if no tournament format in the world for any competition, in the life-time of our human civilization, haven't used extended series, it makes you wonder why. I mean which is more likely, all tournament organizers never thought about this extended series for their brackets, or that it's a terrible rule? I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that can think logically about it.
|
On April 15 2012 12:19 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 12:11 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 12:03 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:57 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:54 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:49 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:44 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:
[quote]
No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL.
The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair. The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head? The proposition of the OP only regards the GSL group stage format which is the setting where I think an extended series rule would be the correct thing to do. Using a gsl like format for bigger groups would be inherently unfair in my opinion which is why I think that such a setting is irrelevant. The GSL group stage is the exact same idea as my extreme example tho. Instead of having 10 people, and each having to play 5, they have 4 people and each has to play 2. A has head to head lead vs B, but B has beaten others in the group while A hasn't. It my extreme example, B beaten 4 others, while A lost to 4 others. In the GSL example, B beaten 1 other, while A lost to 1 other. It's the same concept, I just expanded it to a more extreme case to try to let you see why you can't ignore the other games in the group and only look at their head to head and determine who should advance. Ok, i'll play along. . . If you are in a group of ten players and A and B are both at 4-4 while C through J are already assigned to ranks 1-4 and 7-10 you actually have to use a head to head comparison like you do in the gsl format because nothing will ever change the relation of A and B to ranks 1-4 and 7-10. The only thing that changes is the relation between A and B. Or the 2nd option, to play a tie-breaker set, which is what GSL chose to do. With your way of doing it, GSL wouldn't need them to play a 2nd time. They would simply go A vs B: 2-1 B vs C: 2-0 A vs D: 0-2 K at this point, set score for A and B are both 1-1, therefore, we look at their head to head score, which A is 2-1 against B, so A advances (along with D) That would be the first option i mentioned earlier in the thread and i also said why i do not think that this would be good. If you in this case just play a fresh bo3 you ignore that head to head score, which is like discarding that result. If you instead extend the series you do consider the players first match and you generate content and you can be sure that more likely than with just a fresh bo3 the better player advances Right, playing more games is always more accurate determination of better player, that is a given. But it doesn't make the previous less fair. *edit, but do you see how your first option doesn't make any sense? Because A vs D's game would be meaningless and A would automatically advances if B wins against C. You've said it yourself before, you can NOT ignore the other players that they've played on their different paths of getting to this final point. But extended series by nature ignores that, and only looks at their head to head. My first option does make sense, and A vs D's game makes sense because the relation of B vs D is affected by it because their relation has not been established yet. And i never ignored the other games in the group stage and the extended series rule doesn't either, the only thing it does is give a more precise statement of the relation between player A and B.
I assume you mean B vs C instead of B vs D as a typo.
But it still doesn't make sense. Sure, by your argument, A vs D makes sense cuz B vs C hasn't played yet. BUT, that means B vs C wouldn't make sense because they are played after A vs D. Imagine we're using your first option, and A loses to D. B vs C would be meaningless to B, because even if he wins, he won't advance, as his head to head vs A is meaningless. Therefore, in the whole tournament, he lost to one player once, and A beat only one of the four players, but A gets to advance over B? How is that a group stage?
But we're measuring the relation of A and B and C and D, not just A and B.
|
Have you watched MLG? Or SOTG? everyone in the world disagree's that is from any meaningful back round, giving any advantage is ridiculous when it is that heavy...
IF AT ALL, it should be map advantage, not anything game related, both players earned the rights to be there and earned the rights to fair contest even if it is repeated...
When MLG happens, and you see plays start a bo5 0-2 its no wonder the series are so shtity...
|
The links i provided earlier show precisely why an extended series format leads to a more acurrate representation of player skill. The reason why people disagree with using the rule is because it can drain excitement from games, because it seems like a player won right from the start and the awesome possible comebacks are not balancing this out enough.
And Fubi regarding the example, if:
A > B
C > D
A < C
-->
C 2-0
A 1-1
B 0-1
D 0-1
Now there are a few possibilities
a) D > B
-->
C 2-0
A 1-1
D 1-1
B 0-2
A vs D is played out normally because the relation of A and D hasn't been established yet
b) B > D
C 2-0
A 1-1
B 1-1
D 0-2
Would mean that right now in a head-to-head comparison A > B which is fine
A vs B is only needed to confirm that A > B not to establish that relationship
Now we have another two possibilites:
1) Fresh bo3: A fresh bo3 results in either confirming A > B or it lets B advance without clearly determining which player performed better because a bo3 format is still really bad in determing who the better player was that day
2) Extended series: continuing with a bo7 results in a result which states clearly which player performed better and should advance
There are no meaningless games and even though you try so adamantly to say that tournament organisers not using that rule is proof that the rule is not fair you are wrong, simply because the rules quality is not determined by how frequently it is applied.
Therefore, in the whole tournament, he lost to one player once, and A beat only one of the four players, but A gets to advance over B? How is that a group stage?
Advancing by only beating one player is a flaw of the way the players are paired. The extended series does not have any connection with that, which makes that kind of question meaningless.
Anyways I feel like discussing this topic with you guys isn't going to make sense any longer and with that I am going to withdraw from this topic. We might have to agree to disagree here.
|
Groups are dumb. They should just play them round robin so its more fair and theres no question who are the better players in the group. In the event of a tiebreaker they can just do head to head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
