|
On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage.
Player B already got his advantage, if he fails to use it right why should he get another one for free?
Also, the "harder" opponent is not valid, see Naniwa's group this GSL like someone else said before.
|
On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage. Edit: Harder opponent means the better performing opponent, matchups do influence this part quite a bit sure, but taking this into consideration is impossible because you would have to look at every player seperately.
Exactly why you can't balance any format like this.
You can't use subjective advantages/disadvantages to balance any tournament format, because you can never define them perfectly. These are just some of subjective advantages people like to use
1) How do you define what better mine set is?
2) "He gets more tired from having to play more games", is also subjective, because some players might view playing more games as keeping themselves warmed up? Or having more chances to practice?
3) "Harder" opponent is always debatable. So what if he was better "performing" so far? That doesn't mean anything if he isn't harder; but you can't define "harder"
You must use absolute systematic advantages like these:
1) Winner advances, therefore he is one win closer to winning: This is ALWAYS true and is always an advantage.
2) First person to get 2 sets of win advances, first person to win 2 games wins a set: this is always true, and must apply to everyone equally.
|
On April 15 2012 10:02 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage. Player B already got his advantage, if he fails to use it right why should he get another one for free? Also, the "harder" opponent is not valid, see Naniwa's group this GSL like someone else said before.
As I said in the Edit harder in this case means better performing till that point, which is the only way we can measure the players skill for this tournament. Matchups do play a significant role, but that has to be considered case by case and can't be considered in the overarching system. After A vs B Part 1 the goal for both players remained the same but B earned a win it while A failed. As a result of that early win B now has to play better-performing players which is, as I said, the only way to evaluate the challenge B had to face compared to A for the given group stage, for a really fair evaluation you would need A to play C and B to play D to complete a full round robin system, but that would result in a complete group stage.
|
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
|
On April 15 2012 10:13 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:02 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage. Player B already got his advantage, if he fails to use it right why should he get another one for free? Also, the "harder" opponent is not valid, see Naniwa's group this GSL like someone else said before. As I said in the Edit harder in this case means better performing till that point, which is the only way we can measure the players skill for this tournament. Matchups do play a significant role, but that has to be considered case by case and can't be considered in the overarching system. After A vs B Part 1 the goal for both players remained the same but B earned a win it while A failed. As a result of that early win B now has to play better-performing players which is, as I said, the only way to evaluate the challenge B had to face compared to A for the given group stage, for a really fair evaluation you would need A to play C and B to play D to complete a full round robin system, but that would result in a complete group stage.
It doesn't matter if you can prove that he had to play a harder opponent or not; fact of the matter is, advancing to play a harder opponent is ALWAYS still better than losing to play a worser opponent. Do you not understand how this is true?
Therefore, winner the first set is always awarded an advantage, and vice versa, losing, the first set always punishes you, regardless of their next opponent.
|
On April 15 2012 10:11 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage. Edit: Harder opponent means the better performing opponent, matchups do influence this part quite a bit sure, but taking this into consideration is impossible because you would have to look at every player seperately. Exactly why you can't balance any format like this. You can't use subjective advantages/disadvantages to balance any tournament format, because you can never define them perfectly. These are just some of subjective advantages people like to use 1) How do you define what better mine set is? 2) "He gets more tired from having to play more games", is also subjective, because some players might view playing more games as keeping themselves warmed up? Or having more chances to practice? 3) "Harder" opponent is always debatable. So what if he was better "performing" so far? That doesn't mean anything if he isn't harder; but you can't define "harder" You must use absolute systematic advantages like these: 1) Winner advances, therefore he is one win closer to winning: This is ALWAYS true and is always an advantage. 2) First person to get 2 sets of win advances, first person to win 2 games wins a set: this is always true, and must apply to everyone equally.
1.1) I didn't and if you are not allowed to consider mindset you can't say that A has his back against the wall, because the objective doesn't change just his situation does, the task in itself does not get easier or harder, Player B just fulfilled part of it already
1.2) I never thought about a more tired aspect, i don't care about that, don't know where that is coming from
1.3) If you want to take the performance of the whole group stage into account you have to evaluate each players way to A vs B Part II otherwise you oversimplify it by just saying, meh they are both at equal scores.
2.1) Winner earned it and as i said the task remains the same which is why that advantage should never come back to bite the winners ass
2.2) That wouldn't be changed by the extended series
|
On April 15 2012 10:13 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:02 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage. Player B already got his advantage, if he fails to use it right why should he get another one for free? Also, the "harder" opponent is not valid, see Naniwa's group this GSL like someone else said before. As I said in the Edit harder in this case means better performing till that point, which is the only way we can measure the players skill for this tournament. Matchups do play a significant role, but that has to be considered case by case and can't be considered in the overarching system. After A vs B Part 1 the goal for both players remained the same but B earned a win it while A failed. As a result of that early win B now has to play better-performing players which is, as I said, the only way to evaluate the challenge B had to face compared to A for the given group stage, for a really fair evaluation you would need A to play C and B to play D to complete a full round robin system, but that would result in a complete group stage.
I think the fact that winning the first match means a player only has to win one match out of two and losing the first means that they must win two out of two is enough of an advantage/disadvantage as it is. Any more would be going too far and would place too much importance on the first match.
|
On April 15 2012 10:20 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:13 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 10:02 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage. Player B already got his advantage, if he fails to use it right why should he get another one for free? Also, the "harder" opponent is not valid, see Naniwa's group this GSL like someone else said before. As I said in the Edit harder in this case means better performing till that point, which is the only way we can measure the players skill for this tournament. Matchups do play a significant role, but that has to be considered case by case and can't be considered in the overarching system. After A vs B Part 1 the goal for both players remained the same but B earned a win it while A failed. As a result of that early win B now has to play better-performing players which is, as I said, the only way to evaluate the challenge B had to face compared to A for the given group stage, for a really fair evaluation you would need A to play C and B to play D to complete a full round robin system, but that would result in a complete group stage. It doesn't matter if you can prove that he had to play a harder opponent or not; fact of the matter is, advancing to play a harder opponent is ALWAYS still better than losing to play a worser opponent. Do you not understand how this is true? Therefore, winner the first set is always awarded an advantage, and vice versa, losing, the first set always punishes you, regardless of their next opponent.
Actually no because it doesn't change the given task and its requirements, you still have to win 2 out of a maximum of 3 games, everything else is just catering to the mental aspect.
Your Lakers-Celtics argument is not applicable because in basketball you have 3 layers points, sets and matches while you have only two in sc2 sets and matches. Adding a 3rd layer to sc2 would mean carrying over an army or economy advantage into the next set.
|
1.1) I didn't and if you are not allowed to consider mindset you can't say that A has his back against the wall, because the objective doesn't change just his situation does, the task in itself does not get easier or harder, Player B just fulfilled part of it already We're not talking about mindset here when we say "he has his back against the wall". It simply means if he loses one more set, he is out. While the winner can still lose 2 more sets. 2 is always greater than 1. See? It's a math thing, an absolute advantage that is always true, not something that is subjective like "mind sets"
1.2) I never thought about a more tired aspect, i don't care about that, don't know where that is coming from Was just an example of subjective advantages, many people like to use this in debates for extended series.
1.3) If you want to take the performance of the whole group stage into account you have to evaluate each players way to A vs B Part II otherwise you oversimplify it by just saying, meh they are both at equal scores. And we did consider their ways to it. A won his first and lost his 2nd set, while B lost his first and won his 2nd set: therefore they are both exactly even at that stage, so neither should be given an advantage or disadvantage.
2.1) Winner earned it and as i said the task remains the same which is why that advantage should never come back to bite the winners ass The advantage never comes back to bite the winner's ass. As I have explained it in the previous post, winning the first set is ALWAYS ALWAYS better than losing the first set, regardless if he has to play a better or worse opponent.
2.2) That wouldn't be changed by the extended series Extended series does change the balance of the game systematically. Because now only ONE player in the whole tournament has to win a set by winning 3 games. Sure, whoever wins, will still end up 2-1 set score and advance, but one of the players has to win 3-4 games for their 2nd set, while no one else has to.
|
i don't even understand why we have to explain to idiots the same things over and over again. why is such thread not closed on sight? if you fail to think in a logical way, it is not my duty to explain to you why you are WRONG.
|
On April 15 2012 10:28 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +1.1) I didn't and if you are not allowed to consider mindset you can't say that A has his back against the wall, because the objective doesn't change just his situation does, the task in itself does not get easier or harder, Player B just fulfilled part of it already We're not talking about mindset here when we say "he has his back against the wall". It simply means if he loses one more set, he is out. While the winner can still lose 2 more sets. 2 is always greater than 1. See? It's a math thing, an absolute advantage that is always true, not something that is subjective like "mind sets" Show nested quote +1.2) I never thought about a more tired aspect, i don't care about that, don't know where that is coming from Was just an example of subjective advantages, many people like to use this in debates for extended series. Show nested quote +1.3) If you want to take the performance of the whole group stage into account you have to evaluate each players way to A vs B Part II otherwise you oversimplify it by just saying, meh they are both at equal scores. And we did consider their ways to it. A won his first and lost his 2nd set, while B lost his first and won his 2nd set: therefore they are both exactly even at that stage, so neither should be given an advantage or disadvantage. Show nested quote +2.1) Winner earned it and as i said the task remains the same which is why that advantage should never come back to bite the winners ass The advantage never comes back to bite the winner's ass. As I have explained it in the previous post, winning the first set is ALWAYS ALWAYS better than losing the first set, regardless if he has to play a better or worse opponent. Extended series does change the balance of the game systematically. Because now only ONE player in the whole tournament has to win a set by winning 3 games. Sure, whoever wins, will still end up 2-1 set score and advance, but one of the players has to win 3-4 games for their 2nd set, while no one else has to.
1.1 Being condescending doesn't help your argument, please try to stay objective on this matter even though we disagree with each other. Losing the 1st set just means that Player A had to use his out earlier, doesn't mean he has less, 2 out of 3 still stays 2 out of 3.
1.2 I did not like to use it which is why it had no place in our argument
1.3 They are not even because they had to go different ways, that is a fact, looking at the score and seeing both have a score of 1-1 is an oversimplification
2.1 winning the first set is better than losing the first set that is true, but only because you already fulfilled a part of your task your opponent did not fulfull
2.2 the winner of part 1 always has to win 4 sets in a vs b overall while the loser of part 1 can advance with winning just two
On April 15 2012 10:31 Toxi78 wrote:
i don't even understand why we have to explain to idiots the same things over and over again. why is such thread not closed on sight? if you fail to think in a logical way, it is not my duty to explain to you why you are WRONG.
I don't even understand why we have to deal with idiots who contribute nothing but insults to a discussion. why are people like that not banned on sight? if you fail to contribute in a sensible way, it is not my duty to explain to you why you are STUPID.
|
Actually no because it doesn't change the given task and its requirements, you still have to win 2 out of a maximum of 3 games, everything else is just catering to the mental aspect.
What? you're contradicting yourself here. The fact that you still have to win 2 out of max of 3 games, winning the first one puts you one step closer to that; so how is it not always an advantage to win the first set regardless of who you play next? At worst, if you lose to a super godly opponent next, you still have 1 win, whereas if you're the loser of the first match, you would have to beat your next opponent to even get that first win.
Your Lakers-Celtics argument is not applicable because in basketball you have 3 layers points, sets and matches while you have only two in sc2 sets and matches. Adding a 3rd layer to sc2 would mean carrying over an army or economy advantage into the next set.
The group stages is a 3 layer points too, games, sets, and tallies of sets (first to get 2 sets to advance).
SC2: Games wins you sets, and winning multiple sets lets you advance from the group
Basketball: Points wins you games, and winning multiple games lets you advance from the set
|
On April 15 2012 10:33 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:28 Fubi wrote:1.1) I didn't and if you are not allowed to consider mindset you can't say that A has his back against the wall, because the objective doesn't change just his situation does, the task in itself does not get easier or harder, Player B just fulfilled part of it already We're not talking about mindset here when we say "he has his back against the wall". It simply means if he loses one more set, he is out. While the winner can still lose 2 more sets. 2 is always greater than 1. See? It's a math thing, an absolute advantage that is always true, not something that is subjective like "mind sets" 1.2) I never thought about a more tired aspect, i don't care about that, don't know where that is coming from Was just an example of subjective advantages, many people like to use this in debates for extended series. 1.3) If you want to take the performance of the whole group stage into account you have to evaluate each players way to A vs B Part II otherwise you oversimplify it by just saying, meh they are both at equal scores. And we did consider their ways to it. A won his first and lost his 2nd set, while B lost his first and won his 2nd set: therefore they are both exactly even at that stage, so neither should be given an advantage or disadvantage. 2.1) Winner earned it and as i said the task remains the same which is why that advantage should never come back to bite the winners ass The advantage never comes back to bite the winner's ass. As I have explained it in the previous post, winning the first set is ALWAYS ALWAYS better than losing the first set, regardless if he has to play a better or worse opponent. 2.2) That wouldn't be changed by the extended series Extended series does change the balance of the game systematically. Because now only ONE player in the whole tournament has to win a set by winning 3 games. Sure, whoever wins, will still end up 2-1 set score and advance, but one of the players has to win 3-4 games for their 2nd set, while no one else has to. 1.1 Being condescending doesn't help your argument, please try to stay objective on this matter even though we disagree with each other. Losing the 1st set just means that Player A had to use his out earlier, doesn't mean he has less, 2 out of 3 still stays 2 out of 3. 1.2 I did not like to use it which is why it had no place in our argument 1.3 They are not even because they had to go different ways, that is a fact, looking at the score and seeing both have a score of 1-1 is an oversimplification 2.1 winning the first set is better than losing the first set that is true, but only because you already fulfilled a part of your task your opponent did not fulfull 2.2 the winner of part 1 always has to win 4 sets in a vs b overall while the loser of part 1 can advance with winning just two Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:31 Toxi78 wrote:
i don't even understand why we have to explain to idiots the same things over and over again. why is such thread not closed on sight? if you fail to think in a logical way, it is not my duty to explain to you why you are WRONG. I don't even understand why we have to deal with idiots who contribute nothing but insults to a discussion. why are people like that not banned on sight? if you fail to contribute in a sensible way, it is your duty to stay quiet.
how many times has this been discussed? let me say, over a thousand times, during each MLG.
so now this guy comes up with the genious idea to have extended series in GSL. awesome, really didn't think of that, must be some kind of einstein.
gomtv organizes their tournament the way they want to.
what is this thread going to contribute? are you realistically thinking that gomtv will change their tournament format? no they won't. so in the end we are just discussing the extended series rules AGAIN. how many threads are there about that? enough.
enough is enough.
|
I used to hate extended series, but the more I see it, the more it seems like the fairest way of determing the better player. The only problem is the effect is has on the disadvantaged players' psyche going into the second series.
|
On April 15 2012 10:44 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +Actually no because it doesn't change the given task and its requirements, you still have to win 2 out of a maximum of 3 games, everything else is just catering to the mental aspect. What? you're contradicting yourself here. The fact that you still have to win 2 out of max of 3 games, winning the first one puts you one step closer to that; so how is it not always an advantage to win the first set regardless of who you play next? At worst, if you lose to a super godly opponent next, you still have 1 win, whereas if you're the loser of the first match, you would have to beat your next opponent to even get that first win. Show nested quote +Your Lakers-Celtics argument is not applicable because in basketball you have 3 layers points, sets and matches while you have only two in sc2 sets and matches. Adding a 3rd layer to sc2 would mean carrying over an army or economy advantage into the next set.
The group stages is a 3 layer points too, games, sets, and tallies of sets (first to get 2 sets to advance). SC2: Games wins you sets, and winning multiple sets lets you advance from the group Basketball: Points wins you games, and winning multiple games lets you advance from the set
1.) The task in itself does not get easier overall it is just partly fulfilled already. In that regard you are ahead of your opponent but as i said that was earned in every way and this advantage can be lost in a vs b part 2 which means at that point both are even regarding that. But the loser of part 1 most of the time had to play the underperforming player which means in part 2 that win of the first game contributes nothing but that point even though it should!
2.)
Basketball: Points -> games -> match -> advancing through playoff stage
Starcraft2: Advantages -> games -> match -> advancing through groupstage
In Starcraft2 we never talked about advantages which is the equivalent to points because it helps you win the game in a similar way points do.
|
On April 15 2012 10:52 SeraKuDA wrote:
I used to hate extended series, but the more I see it, the more it seems like the fairest way of determing the better player. The only problem is the effect is has on the disadvantaged players' psyche going into the second series.
It would make sense if it was only these 2 players but it isn't.
there is another x amount of players going on so you cannot simply have rules to get the fairest way of determing the better player between 2 and not taking in account everything else.
|
On April 15 2012 10:46 Toxi78 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:33 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 10:28 Fubi wrote:1.1) I didn't and if you are not allowed to consider mindset you can't say that A has his back against the wall, because the objective doesn't change just his situation does, the task in itself does not get easier or harder, Player B just fulfilled part of it already We're not talking about mindset here when we say "he has his back against the wall". It simply means if he loses one more set, he is out. While the winner can still lose 2 more sets. 2 is always greater than 1. See? It's a math thing, an absolute advantage that is always true, not something that is subjective like "mind sets" 1.2) I never thought about a more tired aspect, i don't care about that, don't know where that is coming from Was just an example of subjective advantages, many people like to use this in debates for extended series. 1.3) If you want to take the performance of the whole group stage into account you have to evaluate each players way to A vs B Part II otherwise you oversimplify it by just saying, meh they are both at equal scores. And we did consider their ways to it. A won his first and lost his 2nd set, while B lost his first and won his 2nd set: therefore they are both exactly even at that stage, so neither should be given an advantage or disadvantage. 2.1) Winner earned it and as i said the task remains the same which is why that advantage should never come back to bite the winners ass The advantage never comes back to bite the winner's ass. As I have explained it in the previous post, winning the first set is ALWAYS ALWAYS better than losing the first set, regardless if he has to play a better or worse opponent. 2.2) That wouldn't be changed by the extended series Extended series does change the balance of the game systematically. Because now only ONE player in the whole tournament has to win a set by winning 3 games. Sure, whoever wins, will still end up 2-1 set score and advance, but one of the players has to win 3-4 games for their 2nd set, while no one else has to. 1.1 Being condescending doesn't help your argument, please try to stay objective on this matter even though we disagree with each other. Losing the 1st set just means that Player A had to use his out earlier, doesn't mean he has less, 2 out of 3 still stays 2 out of 3. 1.2 I did not like to use it which is why it had no place in our argument 1.3 They are not even because they had to go different ways, that is a fact, looking at the score and seeing both have a score of 1-1 is an oversimplification 2.1 winning the first set is better than losing the first set that is true, but only because you already fulfilled a part of your task your opponent did not fulfull 2.2 the winner of part 1 always has to win 4 sets in a vs b overall while the loser of part 1 can advance with winning just two On April 15 2012 10:31 Toxi78 wrote:
i don't even understand why we have to explain to idiots the same things over and over again. why is such thread not closed on sight? if you fail to think in a logical way, it is not my duty to explain to you why you are WRONG. I don't even understand why we have to deal with idiots who contribute nothing but insults to a discussion. why are people like that not banned on sight? if you fail to contribute in a sensible way, it is your duty to stay quiet. how many times has this been discussed? let me say, over a thousand times, during each MLG. so now this guy comes up with the genious idea to have extended series in GSL. awesome, really didn't think of that, must be some kind of einstein. gomtv organizes their tournament the way they want to. what is this thread going to contribute? are you realistically thinking that gomtv will change their tournament format? no they won't. so in the end we are just discussing the extended series rules AGAIN. how many threads are there about that? enough. enough is enough.
That might be your opinion, but preventing discussions like this should be done by not taking part in them if you think that discussing these topics should be avoided and not by telling other tl.net members they are idiots. If a topic is deemed unworthy of tl.net mods will close it, telling them what to do is not your job.
On April 15 2012 10:55 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:52 SeraKuDA wrote:
I used to hate extended series, but the more I see it, the more it seems like the fairest way of determing the better player. The only problem is the effect is has on the disadvantaged players' psyche going into the second series. It would make sense if it was only these 2 players but it isn't. there is another x amount of players going on so you cannot simply have rules to get the fairest way of determing the better player between 2 and not taking in account everything else.
If two players play each other it is always to determine who is the better one of both, which is why extended series do make sense in that case.
|
1.1 Being condescending doesn't help your argument, please try to stay objective on this matter even though we disagree with each other. Losing the 1st set just means that Player A had to use his out earlier, doesn't mean he has less, 2 out of 3 still stays 2 out of 3. Again, look at the bolded part, it's somewhat contradicting. We're talking about AFTER the first encounter correct? if A loses first set, he has ONE out left, where as B still has two. Yes they both started with two, but that becomes irrelevant at this point: A has ONE left, B has TWO. 2 > 1, therefore, advantage. They both started out having to win 2/3, but NOW, B has to win 1/2, while A has to win 2/2. Having to win 1/2 > 2/2, therefore, advantage. I really don't understand how you can disagree here. It's an an absolute, objective advantage for winning first set, regardless of who your next opponents are.
1.3 They are not even because they had to go different ways, that is a fact, looking at the score and seeing both have a score of 1-1 is an oversimplification Of course everyone has to go different ways in a tournament, otherwise there is no point of the tournament, they should of just did a 1v1 showmatch. But not everyone can play everyone in a tournament, unless you make it into a 1 year league like NBA/NHL, therefore, players will be playing against different players. Yes, some will get harder road, some will get easier opponents, etc. But like I said before, you can not objectively define who had a harder road or easier road. Therefore, how many opponents you beat is the only thing that you can objectively and systematically look at.
2.1 winning the first set is better than losing the first set that is true, but only because you already fulfilled a part of your task your opponent did not fulfull Exactly, I'm glad you agreed on that. Which means that the winner of the first match already gained an absolute objective advantage from winning, and vice versa for the loser. Therefore, if they meet again, there should be no other advantage/disadvantage because those have already been distributed after the first set.
2.2 the winner of part 1 always has to win 4 sets in a vs b overall while the loser of part 1 can advance with winning just two What? Winner of part 1 has to win 1 more set, while the loser has to win 2 more sets. I don't understand where you're getting 4 from. But if you meant games, then the loser has to win 4 to advance as well. He won 2 from his 2nd opponent, and 2 more from their next rematch against his first opponent.
|
They both lost the same number of games. I dont see why one should have the advantage going in, that's basically double counting the victory.
|
On April 15 2012 10:57 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +1.1 Being condescending doesn't help your argument, please try to stay objective on this matter even though we disagree with each other. Losing the 1st set just means that Player A had to use his out earlier, doesn't mean he has less, 2 out of 3 still stays 2 out of 3. Again, look at the bolded part, it's somewhat contradicting. We're talking about AFTER the first encounter correct? if A loses first set, he has ONE out left, where as B still has two. Yes they both started with two, but that becomes irrelevant at this point: A has ONE left, B has TWO. 2 > 1, therefore, advantage. They both started out having to win 2/3, but NOW, B has to win 1/2, while A has to win 2/2. Having to win 1/2 > 2/2, therefore, advantage. I really don't understand how you can disagree here. It's an an absolute, objective advantage for winning first set, regardless of who your next opponents are. Show nested quote +1.3 They are not even because they had to go different ways, that is a fact, looking at the score and seeing both have a score of 1-1 is an oversimplification Of course everyone has to go different ways in a tournament, otherwise there is no point of the tournament, they should of just did a 1v1 showmatch. But not everyone can play everyone in a tournament, unless you make it into a 1 year league like NBA/NHL, therefore, players will be playing against different players. Yes, some will get harder road, some will get easier opponents, etc. But like I said before, you can not objectively define who had a harder road or easier road. Therefore, how many opponents you beat is the only thing that you can objectively and systematically look at. Show nested quote +2.1 winning the first set is better than losing the first set that is true, but only because you already fulfilled a part of your task your opponent did not fulfull Exactly, I'm glad you agreed on that. Which means that the winner of the first match already gained an absolute objective advantage from winning, and vice versa for the loser. Therefore, if they meet again, there should be no other advantage/disadvantage because those have already been distributed after the first set. Show nested quote +2.2 the winner of part 1 always has to win 4 sets in a vs b overall while the loser of part 1 can advance with winning just two What? Winner of part 1 has to win 1 more set, while the loser has to win 2 more sets. I don't understand where you're getting 4 from. But if you meant games, then the loser has to win 4 to advance as well. He won 2 from his 2nd opponent, and 2 more from their next rematch against his first opponent.
The thing is that 1/2 vs 2/2 doesn't matter when the extended series rule comes into play because at that point it is 1/1 for both players. Both have to win to advance.
The point is that using an extended series rule lets the better player advance more often which is fair, and that is exactly why the rule should be used.
And in terms of the set thingie, i think we didn't use the words in the same way.
In A vs B overall the winner of part one always has to win 4-X while the loser of part one can win x-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
