EPT[D] Extended series in GSL groups - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Grampz
United States2147 Posts
| ||
|
Trealador
United States207 Posts
| ||
|
Zyrre
Sweden291 Posts
On April 15 2012 04:42 hugman wrote: The goal of a tournament isn't to determine who the best player is; the goal of a tournament is to decide a winner. Making a tournament about determining who the best player is turns it into complete nonsense. If you wanted it to be about that then you would strive for as much granularity in your judgement of a player's performance as possible. If it was about determining who's the best then shouldn't a proxy 2-rax or 6-pool count for less than an epic comeback in a 40 minute macro game? Well it doesn't. Every map win is worth the same. Every BoX win is worth the same. The tournament doesn't care about the fashion in which you won, if it was nice play or ugly play, if you beat a champion or a last minute replacement. Of course the goal is to determine the best player. We use double elim because we have to compromise. It uses a relatively low amount of games, it's easy to understand and there is a clear progression which builds excitement and makes it pleasurable to watch. Adding a very small amount of games in exchange for being more accurate and fair(and no harder to understand than the double boX that occur in double elim) seems like a good idea to me. | ||
|
Azelja
Japan762 Posts
| ||
|
Angel_
United States1617 Posts
On April 15 2012 04:41 Xlancer wrote: From the poll it would seem that starcraft spectators could care less about how fair a tournament is set up. I would think that spectators would prefer the extended series rule just because it would allow them to potentially seem more games(Bo7 instead of 2 Bo3). I think that if you change the poll to say "Yes, I want to see more games!" the number of votes would drastically increase! LOL except that's called loading statements. if for example, you asked if spectators wanted a bo7 or a bo7 through extended series, i think you can imagine what kind of answers you'd get. don't go trying to make everyone else look dumb. There is no evidence that an extended series makes a game more "fair" for anyone, at least not more than simply adding more games. | ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
Dude you watched too much mlg. | ||
|
mapleleafs791
United States225 Posts
no... The gsl format rewards the winners of the first game and punishes the loser. 2 losses -> 2 wins -> we play each other is fair imo. even if you win the first and lose the second if its a big deal then dont lose the first game. Double elimination is different than winners/losers matches into a losers-winner match [sounds so akward] but both are fine and the gsl version is way more dramatic so i prefer it personally. | ||
|
MCDayC
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On April 14 2012 23:43 HaXXspetten wrote: True. ...but it would still be fucking terrible >.> This. For GSL there is some kind of logic to it, even though they should definitely not implement it. For MLG, it's FUCKING INSANE! | ||
|
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
| ||
|
Atlas247
Canada318 Posts
| ||
|
Azelja
Japan762 Posts
| ||
|
hugman
Sweden4644 Posts
On April 15 2012 04:54 Zyrre wrote: Of course the goal is to determine the best player. We use double elim because we have to compromise. It uses a relatively low amount of games, it's easy to understand and there is a clear progression which builds excitement and makes it pleasurable to watch. Adding a very small amount of games in exchange for being more accurate and fair(and no harder to understand than the double boX that occur in double elim) seems like a good idea to me. It doesn't make it any more fair at all. Fairness is subjective. You can't use it as an argument for a rule. For example, why is it more fair to use head to head map score than overall map score? Extended series is bad because it's an inconsistency. Genius and MKP had both won one Bo3 and lost one Bo3. Because they had played eachother extended series would kick in and say that the mapscore, in just one of the three Bo3s that they had played, should matter and give Genius a disadvantage in the last match. It's changing the rules depending on who you play and it's arbitrary. The only way you get a semblance of fairness is if you keep the rules consistent, for everyone, every time. | ||
|
SkimGuy
Canada709 Posts
Also it makes for much better storylines when going through the group stage - Will the same players meet again in the final match? Will they use the same strategies? etc. | ||
|
HolyArrow
United States7116 Posts
On April 15 2012 05:18 SkimGuy wrote: Extended series would not make sense at all. The advantage that MarineKing got in the example posted by the OP is that he got 2 chances to advance, while Genius only got 1. The system is more than fair. OP is just sad that his favourite player didn't make it imo Also it makes for much better storylines when going through the group stage - Will the same players meet again in the final match? Will they use the same strategies? etc. Agreed. You look at it in terms of "chances to advance", not in terms of who are actually playing against each other. | ||
|
TheMatrix
51 Posts
| ||
|
HaXeR
Czech Republic189 Posts
| ||
|
theBOOCH
United States832 Posts
| ||
|
theBOOCH
United States832 Posts
Extended series would not make sense at all. The advantage that MarineKing got in the example posted by the OP is that he got 2 chances to advance, while Genius only got 1. The system is more than fair. OP is just sad that his favourite player didn't make it imo Also it makes for much better storylines when going through the group stage - Will the same players meet again in the final match? Will they use the same strategies? etc. Agreed. You look at it in terms of "chances to advance", not in terms of who are actually playing against each other. This depends on what you define the purpose of a tournament to be. If you define it in terms of the highest possible certainty that the most deserving player advances, it doesn't fly. However, if you define it in terms of individual achievement in a particular set of matches, the concept which in reality most tournaments past a certain stage rely on, then yeah, it works. The problem is that in any group stage, in any tournament, the purpose is to sort out the most deserving challenges for the higher stages of the tournament where the stakes are higher and the certainty that a particular player who advances was more deserving than another player who didn't advance goes down. | ||
|
Zyrre
Sweden291 Posts
On April 15 2012 05:18 hugman wrote: It doesn't make it any more fair at all. Fairness is subjective. You can't use it as an argument for a rule. For example, why is it more fair to use head to head map score than overall map score? Extended series is bad because it's an inconsistency. Genius and MKP had both won one Bo3 and lost one Bo3. Because they had played eachother extended series would kick in and say that the mapscore, in just one of the three Bo3s that they had played, should matter and give Genius a disadvantage in the last match. It's changing the rules depending on who you play and it's arbitrary. The only way you get a semblance of fairness is if you keep the rules consistent, for everyone, every time. Fairness might be subjective, but a bo7 is still more accurate in determening who the better player is then two bo3s. Why would you call it arbitrary? Consistency does not mean good either. Every round is determined by a cointoss, thats consistent and terrible. | ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
On April 14 2012 23:07 ArcticRaven wrote: The better player didn't win ? If he doesn't win then he isn't the better player. As simple as this might sound, this is the correct answer to the question. Objectively, there's no such thing as a "better player" before the game has been played. After a game, you can say "this player was better than the other", which means he won. All other considerations should be neglected. | ||
| ||
