|
On April 15 2012 10:57 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:46 Toxi78 wrote: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. Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:55 Assirra wrote: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.
You misunderstood me. While what you say is true your extended series rules messes with the rest of the tournament in the way you make a victory count double.
if it was only these 2 players it is fine but it aint.
|
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!
The advantage is never lost. His first win gave him a CHANCE to advance. It isn't a guarantee chance. Even if he has to play the godliest opponent, and he only has 20% chance to win, that is still a 20% chance to advance from the group.
The loser of the first set NEVER had this chance to advance, not even 0.1%. In fact, it's even worst, he has a CHANCE to be eliminated as his punishment. Even if he plays a bad opponent that he will win 80% of the times, he is still punished from his first lost by having a 20% chance to be eliminated.
Therefore, that advantage of winning the first set is never lost. One player is rewarded with the chance to advance, while the other player never did, and is instead punished with a chance to be eliminated.
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.
The bolded part, winning 2 games to win a match doesn't allow you to advance through group stage, it just gives you one point in your set score. You need 2 set scores to advance.
So it should be like Advantages -> games -> match -> set -> advance
Same as basketball: Points wins you the game, games wins you the matches in a set, but you only have to win one set to advance. So same number of layers
I don't see how you can attribute in-game advantages as a point itself, as that can't be realistically quantified. Just like in basketball, soccer, hockey, etc, you can have advantages as well, such as being in good positioning, having good power play, being in less of foul-troubles, etc.
|
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?
|
On April 15 2012 11:05 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:57 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 10:46 Toxi78 wrote: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: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. You misunderstood me. While what you say is true your extended series rules messes with the rest of the tournament in the way you make a victory count double. if it was only these 2 players it is fine but it aint.
But at the time of the match it is only about those 2 players. All others are either eliminated or not concerned with the result of this match because the only thing for them is that one of both players advance
|
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. I'm lost here, that 1/2 vs 2/2 thing is an advantage that happens before the extended series.
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 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.
|
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 to be concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate to rank them properly.
|
Whichever the format the OSL uses, the GSL should. 
|
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.
|
On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 15 2012 11:18 Meteora.GB wrote:Whichever the format the OSL uses, the GSL should.
So GSL should use Best of 1?
|
On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 15 2012 11:27 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
On April 15 2012 11:33 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 15 2012 11:41 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 15 2012 11:46 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 15 2012 11:44 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Extended series can't never be the solution to anything. They could make changes, but for me it's okay as it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
