[D] Extended series in GSL groups

On April 14 2012 22:47 xCenasfu wrote:
I mistakenly voted for yes.

On April 14 2012 22:46 00Visor wrote:
No, lets get rid off extended series in all tournaments. They completely defeat the purpose of double elimination.

On April 14 2012 22:56 sjperera wrote:
At the end of the day... both players come into the 5th set.. 1-1 in the group... so it' fair despite their previous record... don't really like the idea of extended series... one thing i hate about MLG and... the recent IPL too...

On April 14 2012 22:56 sjperera wrote:
At the end of the day... both players come into the 5th set.. 1-1 in the group... so it' fair despite their previous record... don't really like the idea of extended series... one thing i hate about MLG and... the recent IPL too...

On April 14 2012 23:19 Micket wrote:
Extended series is shit. 'Winning' is measured by victories in Best of 3. Not number of matches played.

On April 14 2012 23:25 Big J wrote:
No, they should just change it to a normal group system:

Player A
Player B
Player C
Player D

A - D
B - C
A - C
B - D
C - D
A - B

everybody plays everybody once; easy and leads to precise results. And because there is a difference between getting 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th, there is no game that doesn't matter.

On April 14 2012 23:25 Big J wrote:
No, they should just change it to a normal group system:

Player A
Player B
Player C
Player D

A - D
B - C
A - C
B - D
C - D
A - B

everybody plays everybody once; easy and leads to precise results. And because there is a difference between getting 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th, there is no game that doesn't matter.

On April 14 2012 23:39 Koshi wrote:
It makes more sense to use extended series in the GSL than in MLG.

On April 14 2012 23:37 Bidj wrote:


Nope, wrong.
What you are looking for is (I believe) "round-robin".
And there are a ton of cases where games does't matter for some players (A), leading to another player (B) advancing or not depending of the effort the player (A) is willing to put in his insignificant (for him) game.

On April 15 2012 00:13 Derez wrote:
The GSL format is perfect as it is. Extended series lead to garbage, uninteresting games and round robin is not a viable alternative because playing 6 bo3's for every day of pool play would simply be too long. Tournaments need to be watchable from an entertainment perspective without having to sit in front of your TV for 8 hours.

On April 15 2012 00:18 Big J wrote:


round robin are 6 bo3's. The system right now is 5 bo3's, I don't think this is the big problem.

On April 14 2012 23:08 Lobo2me wrote:

What happened in the recent IPL that was extended series?

On April 15 2012 01:10 sc14s wrote:

.... the finals?

On April 15 2012 01:10 sc14s wrote:

.... the finals?

On April 15 2012 01:10 sc14s wrote:

.... the finals?

On April 15 2012 01:13 Kovaz wrote:

It wasn't extended series. It was just the winner's advantage that comes with double elimination. You have to lose 2 series to be eliminated. The team coming from the winners bracket hasn't lost one to that point. If they lose the first series, each team has lost once, and they have to play a second series.

Extended series only happen when two teams have played earlier in the tournament.

On April 15 2012 01:21 sc14s wrote:

eh well i have an issue with that as well same shit different name

On April 14 2012 22:31 robinroz wrote:
Genius 0-2 MarineKing
Genius 2-1 MarineKing
Genius 2-3 MarineKing

On April 15 2012 01:30 zere wrote:
Dont think of the GSL groups as a "group" that needs to count mapscores of players against each other, but as a double elimination bracket, because that's essentially what it is.





tldr; everything's fine, get the abominational extended series out of your heads.

On April 15 2012 03:56 Zyrre wrote:
The reason for using extended series is to more accurately decide who is the best player, since that is what a tournament is trying to do. It simply increases the accuracy while only adding a very small amount of extra games played.

You could reasonably argue that it detracts from excitement. Personally I would rather that they are more accurate, but to each his own.

Most people here though seem to argue my first statement, without using any arguments for it.

On April 15 2012 03:56 Zyrre wrote:
The reason for using extended series is to more accurately decide who is the best player, since that is what a tournament is trying to do. It simply increases the accuracy while only adding a very small amount of extra games played.

You could reasonably argue that it detracts from excitement. Personally I would rather that they are more accurate, but to each his own.

Most people here though seem to argue my first statement, without using any arguments for it.

On April 15 2012 04:41 Xlancer wrote:
From the poll it would seem that starcraft spectators could care less about how fair a tournament is set up. I would think that spectators would prefer the extended series rule just because it would allow them to potentially seem more games(Bo7 instead of 2 Bo3). I think that if you change the poll to say "Yes, I want to see more games!" the number of votes would drastically increase! LOL

On April 14 2012 23:43 HaXXspetten wrote:

True.




...but it would still be fucking terrible >.>

On April 15 2012 04:54 Zyrre wrote:

Of course the goal is to determine the best player. We use double elim because we have to compromise.
It uses a relatively low amount of games, it's easy to understand and there is a clear progression which builds excitement and makes it pleasurable to watch.
Adding a very small amount of games in exchange for being more accurate and fair(and no harder to understand than the double boX that occur in double elim) seems like a good idea to me.

On April 15 2012 05:18 SkimGuy wrote:
Extended series would not make sense at all. The advantage that MarineKing got in the example posted by the OP is that he got 2 chances to advance, while Genius only got 1. The system is more than fair. OP is just sad that his favourite player didn't make it imo

Also it makes for much better storylines when going through the group stage - Will the same players meet again in the final match? Will they use the same strategies? etc.

Extended series would not make sense at all. The advantage that MarineKing got in the example posted by the OP is that he got 2 chances to advance, while Genius only got 1. The system is more than fair. OP is just sad that his favourite player didn't make it imo

Also it makes for much better storylines when going through the group stage - Will the same players meet again in the final match? Will they use the same strategies? etc.


Agreed. You look at it in terms of "chances to advance", not in terms of who are actually playing against each other.

On April 14 2012 23:07 ArcticRaven wrote:
The better player didn't win ? If he doesn't win then he isn't the better player.

On April 15 2012 05:44 Zyrre wrote:


Fairness might be subjective, but a bo7 is still more accurate in determening who the better player is then two bo3s.

Why would you call it arbitrary? Consistency does not mean good either. Every round is determined by a cointoss, thats consistent and terrible.

On April 14 2012 22:31 robinroz wrote:
Blue: For example, it's unfair to Mvp (in Mvp 4-1 Lucky) that he comes within a game of elimination even though, by final score, he is decidedly better than Lucky.

Thoughts?

On April 15 2012 00:18 Big J wrote:


round robin are 6 bo3's. The system right now is 5 bo3's, I don't think this is the big problem.

On April 15 2012 05:44 Zyrre wrote:

Fairness might be subjective, but a bo7 is still more accurate in determening who the better player is then two bo3s.

Why would you call it arbitrary? Consistency does not mean good either. Every round is determined by a cointoss, thats consistent and terrible.

On April 15 2012 06:48 fire_brand wrote:
I know everyone and their mothers hates the extended series rule, but I can see where he's coming from. A player get into the ro32 by beating one player twice, and possibly getting by on a single matchup, which seems very silly.

For example in the Naniwa, puzzle, ryung, MVP group we had a situation where ryung smashes MVP, loses to naniwa then loses to MVP. In this particular situation Ryung 2-0'd MVP, then MVP returned the favor, but let's say in the second series MVP 2-1's Ryung. That means Ryung goes 3-2 vs MVP and still fails to get through.

Now I definitely think the extended series rule is dumb as hell and GOM is right to avoid it like the plague, but I also sympathize with the players that get punished because of this rule. I'm also a little uneasy when an arguably bad player can remain in Code S, or even advance, by getting by on a single matchup.

I don't really know what is a good solution for this. Having the players play the advancing and failed to advance players doesn't really count for anything as it could be in these players favor to either throw a game, or conserve themselves. It may also be a little difficult to play it out seriously if there is nothing for them to player for.

On April 15 2012 07:03 Champloo wrote:
No. Esports need to get rid of extended series. Double elimination should also only be used in the beginning stages when there's 128+ players, but when it's down to 32 or less players group stages and single elimination is the way to go.

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 Bo3s
Statistical Analysis of Extended Series

The 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.

On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:

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.

On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:

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 B
D lost against C and A
A lost against B but won against D
B won against A but lost against C

So 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.

On April 15 2012 09:32 phantaxx wrote:
The point of a tournament is to determine who wins, not who is the best player. If you want to take into account previous series between the two players why don't you just forget having them play altogether and compare their records against each other to see who advances?

On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:

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 B
D lost against C and A
A lost against B but won against D
B won against A but lost against C

So 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.

On April 15 2012 09:34 Shiori wrote:

False analogy: extended series would also result if, say, B played against D, instead of A.

On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:

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.

On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:


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.

On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:


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.

On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:


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.

On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:

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.

On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:

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.

On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:

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.

On April 15 2012 10:02 Assirra wrote:

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 10:13 Bazinga wrote:


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.

On April 15 2012 10:11 Fubi wrote:

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 10:13 Bazinga wrote:


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.

On April 15 2012 10:20 Fubi wrote:

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.

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 10:28 Fubi wrote:
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"

Was just an example of subjective advantages, many people like to use this in debates for extended series.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On April 15 2012 10:33 Bazinga wrote:

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



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.

On April 15 2012 10:44 Fubi wrote:

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.


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 10:52 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.

On April 15 2012 10:46 Toxi78 wrote:


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.

On April 15 2012 10:55 Assirra wrote:

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.

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.

1.3 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 10:57 Fubi wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

On April 15 2012 10:57 Bazinga wrote:

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.



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.) 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 11:05 Assirra wrote:

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.

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

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.

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?

On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:


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

On April 15 2012 11:18 Meteora.GB wrote:
Whichever the format the OSL uses, the GSL should.

On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:

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 11:21 Fubi wrote:

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 11:27 Bazinga wrote:


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 11:31 Bazinga wrote:


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 11:33 Fubi wrote:

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

On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:

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 11:41 Bazinga wrote:



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?