|
On September 22 2012 03:39 chisuri wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2012 03:36 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:35 CosmicSpiral wrote:On September 22 2012 03:33 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:29 Dosey wrote:On September 22 2012 03:26 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2012 03:09 Assirra wrote:On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend?  If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then. I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse. So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right? If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win? Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games. No. You are sadly mistaken. Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they? No. Every single tennis match in tournaments is at least a Bo3 (increases to Bo5 for men) sets. Never ever a Bo1. What are you even talking about? I don't even...There is only 1 game for every tennis match last time I checked.
lol yes one match is one match, tautologically...
But if you've ever looked at how StarCraft is comparable to tennis (which is talked about quite frequently), you'd understand that the comparison is between winning a game of SC and winning a set in tennis, and having the endurance, intellect, dexterity, and knowledge (what to do differently, what to do the same, etc.) to play on into the next game of SC and next set of tennis until you win the entire BoX series of SC or BoX set in tennis.
Obviously you just play one match of tennis, if you want to define it like that. But we're talking in terms of how it relates to SC. (Hell, you could just as easily say "there's only one world series for baseball, right?", but that doesn't make the comparison any more valid for it being a Bo1 "like SC".)
And furthermore, all of this is still irrelevant to your initial argument that a Bo1 is as good a calculator of skill as a Bo3 or 5 or 7, etc. Maybe not a true coinflip, but still far more volatile.
|
On September 22 2012 03:36 chisuri wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:35 CosmicSpiral wrote:On September 22 2012 03:33 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:29 Dosey wrote:On September 22 2012 03:26 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2012 03:09 Assirra wrote:On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend? If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then. I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse. So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right? If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win? Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games. No. You are sadly mistaken. Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they?
world cup and euro cup use qualifier in to groups into single elim but i dont think you can compare BoX in starcraft to playing 1 game in football.
|
On September 22 2012 03:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:39 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2012 03:36 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:35 CosmicSpiral wrote:On September 22 2012 03:33 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:29 Dosey wrote:On September 22 2012 03:26 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2012 03:09 Assirra wrote:
[quote]
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player.
Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then. I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse. So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right? If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win? Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games. No. You are sadly mistaken. Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they? No. Every single tennis match in tournaments is at least a Bo3 (increases to Bo5 for men) sets. Never ever a Bo1. What are you even talking about? I don't even...There is only 1 game for every tennis match last time I checked. lol yes one match is one match, tautologically... But if you've ever looked at how StarCraft is comparable to tennis (which is talked about quite frequently), you'd understand that the comparison is between winning a game of SC and winning a set in tennis, and having the endurance, intellect, dexterity, and knowledge (what to do differently, what to do the same, etc.) to play on into the next game of SC and next set of tennis until you win the entire BoX series of SC or BoX set in tennis. Obviously you just play one match of tennis, if you want to define it like that. But we're talking in terms of how it relates to SC. (Hell, you could just as easily say "there's only one world series for baseball, right?", but that doesn't make the comparison any more valid for it being a Bo1 "like SC".) And furthermore, all of this is still irrelevant to your initial argument that a Bo1 is as good a calculator of skill as a Bo3 or 5 or 7, etc. Maybe not a true coinflip, but still far more volatile.
I never said that Bo1 was a more accurate indicator of skill than Bo3 or further Best of X series. And of course Best of anything higher than 5 or at the max 7 will be ridiculous and impractical. However, how can you decide which format is the "enough" one to apply? I mean you will never be able to choose the best, absolute best player anyways because of the limitations of time and practical factors. Then why bother? Are Bo1 and Bo3 so much different? I don't think so. If you do a Bo3, the losers will have the excuse to go like "If you did a Bo5, Bo7 I would be the winner...This is not fair...", See the problem now? The only reason you choose Bo3 isn't its fairness but its convenience. i still think Bo1 has some merits to decide who is a better player, and you will never know if the one who wins the Bo3 would win a Bo5, Bo7 if it was held.
|
On September 22 2012 03:53 chisuri wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2012 03:39 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2012 03:36 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:35 CosmicSpiral wrote:On September 22 2012 03:33 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:29 Dosey wrote:On September 22 2012 03:26 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse. So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right? If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win? Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games. No. You are sadly mistaken. Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they? No. Every single tennis match in tournaments is at least a Bo3 (increases to Bo5 for men) sets. Never ever a Bo1. What are you even talking about? I don't even...There is only 1 game for every tennis match last time I checked. lol yes one match is one match, tautologically... But if you've ever looked at how StarCraft is comparable to tennis (which is talked about quite frequently), you'd understand that the comparison is between winning a game of SC and winning a set in tennis, and having the endurance, intellect, dexterity, and knowledge (what to do differently, what to do the same, etc.) to play on into the next game of SC and next set of tennis until you win the entire BoX series of SC or BoX set in tennis. Obviously you just play one match of tennis, if you want to define it like that. But we're talking in terms of how it relates to SC. (Hell, you could just as easily say "there's only one world series for baseball, right?", but that doesn't make the comparison any more valid for it being a Bo1 "like SC".) And furthermore, all of this is still irrelevant to your initial argument that a Bo1 is as good a calculator of skill as a Bo3 or 5 or 7, etc. Maybe not a true coinflip, but still far more volatile. I never said that Bo1 was a more accurate indicator of skill than Bo3 or further Best of X series. And of course Best of anything higher than 5 or at the max 7 will be ridiculous and impractical. However, how can you decide which format is the "enough" one to apply? I mean you will never be able to choose the best, absolute best player anyways because of the limitations of time and practical factors. Then why bother? Are Bo1 and Bo3 so much different? I don't think so. If you do a Bo3, the losers will have the excuse to go like "If you did a Bo5, Bo7 I would be the winner...This is not fair...", See the problem now? The only reason you choose Bo3 isn't its fairness but its convenience. i still think Bo1 has some merits to decide who is a better player, and you will never know if the one who wins the Bo3 would win a Bo5, Bo7 if it was held.
"However, how can you decide which format is the "enough" one to apply?"
It's subjective- obviously- but it all depends on how much time you have to run the tournament, how many games the players will need to play over the course of the tournament, player and audience input, and surely several other variables. There's no established single best format, or else it would be universally used by all tournaments.
"Then why bother?"
The same reason why you "bother" with any other tournament rules... you need some sort of structure, and you need justifications for implementing the rules that you create. If you can't properly defend your regulations (and- even worse- if people start to disagree and make a fuss about your rules), then there are going to be problems. That's bad for business, the future of the tournament, anyone who wanted to play or watch your matches, etc.
"Are Bo1 and Bo3 so much different? I don't think so. If you do a Bo3, the losers will have the excuse to go like "If you did a Bo5, Bo7 I would be the winner...This is not fair...","
As long as there are justifiable rules in place, then the players' whines aren't acceptable. This is because there are elements of luck involved in StarCraft (e.g. imperfect information), the fact that the outcomes aren't predetermined in the tournament (or else why bother having the tournament to begin with?), and the fact that these are estimated probabilities but can't account for other hidden variables (e.g. sickness, mental tilt, jetlag, improper scouting, etc.).
"The only reason you choose Bo3 isn't its fairness but its convenience."
No. Do the math. Pick two arbitrary probabilities (summing to 1) for a player who's favored and a player who isn't, and then work out the calculations between the chances of each of them winning a Bo1 vs. a Bo3 vs. a Bo5, etc. You'll see it becomes more and more likely that the player who's statistically better is more likely to win the higher BoXs. So if you don't want upsets and want the better players to move on to the next rounds (because you want the best games possible), you increase the BoX if time and player stamina and audience focus will allow.
I feel like you're arguing just to be difficult. What are all these "merits" to a Bo1 format? You haven't named any yet. If you want to create an interesting and novel tournament called The Tournament Of Upsets, and make it all Bo1s, go ahead, but it will not decide who is the better player. Heck, I'd probably watch it too, because it'd be pretty neat. But there's a reason why all the big tournaments use some sort of Bo3 (or more) tournament setting, round robins, or something else. They all reduce the statistical volatility that's inherent in Bo1s.
|
On September 22 2012 03:45 chisuri wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:41 Pri1230 wrote:On September 22 2012 03:36 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:35 CosmicSpiral wrote:On September 22 2012 03:33 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:29 Dosey wrote:On September 22 2012 03:26 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2012 03:09 Assirra wrote:On September 22 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Bo1 is never a good idea if we want the better players to win, as statistically the better players will win the longer BoX series. I don't like such volatility from Bo1 either, where one cheese could knock half the great players out of the tournament. Who would want to watch the rest of the weekend? If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player. Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then. I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse. So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right? If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win? Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games. No. You are sadly mistaken. Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they? Most events in the Olympics arent bo1. The only one that comes to mind are the martial arts (even then you have Repechage) and I guess track events. World cup and Euros both have group stages (plus qualifiers), in tennis you have more than 1 game in a match. How can qualifiers and group stages be considered a part of Best of X series???? OK so you are admitting from the playoff stage they will be doing Bo1 format, right? And Tennis is just how you score it. There is no objective in the match. You score until you have enough to win the match, according to the rules. In E-Sport there are definite ways of winning the game and force losers to leave. How can you compare a set of tennis with a full match in e-sport?
Wait so now youre saying that you cant compare traditional sports to sc2? playing one game of sc2 is essentially like playing a set in tennis I really dont get where your going with "Its just how its scored". I can say the same thing about sc2. You couldnt have a best of 3 football match becuase you can get draws then you would have to deal with penalty shoot outs (which people complain about becuase its more luck than skill).
|
Most north american sports except american football have series play in their playoffs... (American) football only has best of one because the sport is so physically demanding and it's much more convenient for TV ratings that way.
Also, in SC2, a single game is the smallest unit of measurement for victory. In fencing, you don't declare the first touch the winner, just like the first team to score in most sports isn't automatically declared the winner.
|
On September 22 2012 01:09 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 01:05 FlukyS wrote:
I felt the Windows 8 question wasn't correctly answered by Dustin Browder, like he talked about that everyone has predicted the death of the PC for years..etc but he didn't really say about the viability of Windows 8 as a gaming platform. As well as that I found it really funny that he said PC is an open platform when it really isn't. Its interesting how Valve are porting their stuff to Linux as a way to not be reliant on the Windows platform, id love to see what Blizzard are thinking about in this particular area.
I love the discussion though. Open platform : everyone and their dog can make a game on the platform without any trouble of royalities and stuff. PC is about as open as you can get...
Not really exactly correct because his point was PC is an open platform but so is Mac and so is Linux but both do it half as good as Linux to be honest. Everyone and their dog can make games and applications on any system. Ill give you an example how open Linux is, if SC2 was on Linux they could have controls in the game to change the song on the music player because they all agreed on a common API to expose controls to developers. (its called mpris if you want to look at it)
I can give 100 other examples but the point is Linux is entirely open, if Blizzard found a bug they can fix it unlike Windows where they work around bugs in the system. So really its infinitely more open in terms of what you can do.
|
On September 22 2012 07:24 FlukyS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 01:09 Assirra wrote:On September 22 2012 01:05 FlukyS wrote:
I felt the Windows 8 question wasn't correctly answered by Dustin Browder, like he talked about that everyone has predicted the death of the PC for years..etc but he didn't really say about the viability of Windows 8 as a gaming platform. As well as that I found it really funny that he said PC is an open platform when it really isn't. Its interesting how Valve are porting their stuff to Linux as a way to not be reliant on the Windows platform, id love to see what Blizzard are thinking about in this particular area.
I love the discussion though. Open platform : everyone and their dog can make a game on the platform without any trouble of royalities and stuff. PC is about as open as you can get... Not really exactly correct because his point was PC is an open platform but so is Mac and so is Linux but both do it half as good as Linux to be honest. Everyone and their dog can make games and applications on any system. Ill give you an example how open Linux is, if SC2 was on Linux they could have controls in the game to change the song on the music player because they all agreed on a common API to expose controls to developers. (its called mpris if you want to look at it) I can give 100 other examples but the point is Linux is entirely open, if Blizzard found a bug they can fix it unlike Windows where they work around bugs in the system. So really its infinitely more open in terms of what you can do.
you're mixing everything
PC and mac is hardware, windows,linux, macOS is software
forgetting the softwares, PC is open, mac is patented
what he meant to say, is that everyone can make a PC, not just build it, but creating one. You can create your company that makes and build PCs, tweak them in every way you want, however, you can't make macs
|
On September 22 2012 05:38 Pri1230 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:45 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:41 Pri1230 wrote:On September 22 2012 03:36 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:35 CosmicSpiral wrote:On September 22 2012 03:33 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:29 Dosey wrote:On September 22 2012 03:26 chisuri wrote:On September 22 2012 03:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2012 03:09 Assirra wrote:
[quote]
If he was the better player he would have stopped the cheese of the other player.
Why do people always act like cheese is a lower lvl of play, its a strategy like an other and if it works said player deserves to win and is the better player then. I'm not saying that a better player will always lose to a worse player who cheeses, and I think you're missing the statistical fact of longer series reducing the volatility of results between players who are measuredly better and worse. So why don't we play Bo101, Bo10001? The only way to figure out the absolute best player is to play Best of positive Infinity right? If you're watching a poker tournament and it gets down to three way or heads up, would you prefer for them to just go all in for a coin flip, or play it out to see who is the better player? The coin flip can be tense and exciting at times, but that's only because we don't constantly see it. If we're seeing nothing but coin flips, doesn't that kind of stagnate the game a bit and cheapen the win? Who told you that Bo1 equals coin flip? As far as I know, most of sport tournaments are using Bo1 format, or at least a part of them. Only losers whine about coin flips or luck factor after the games. No. You are sadly mistaken. Olympics, World Cup, Euros, Tennis tournaments... are using Bo1, aren't they? Most events in the Olympics arent bo1. The only one that comes to mind are the martial arts (even then you have Repechage) and I guess track events. World cup and Euros both have group stages (plus qualifiers), in tennis you have more than 1 game in a match. How can qualifiers and group stages be considered a part of Best of X series???? OK so you are admitting from the playoff stage they will be doing Bo1 format, right? And Tennis is just how you score it. There is no objective in the match. You score until you have enough to win the match, according to the rules. In E-Sport there are definite ways of winning the game and force losers to leave. How can you compare a set of tennis with a full match in e-sport? Wait so now youre saying that you cant compare traditional sports to sc2? playing one game of sc2 is essentially like playing a set in tennis I really dont get where your going with "Its just how its scored". I can say the same thing about sc2. You couldnt have a best of 3 football match becuase you can get draws then you would have to deal with penalty shoot outs (which people complain about becuase its more luck than skill). playing one game in SC2 is NOT equal to a set in Tennis. It would be more equal to a(drum roll).......
a game! a game is won after many points, and sometimes a single game drags on for a pretty long while. it takes 6 games to win a set. so a set in tennis is more akin to an entire match(bo3, about) in SC2. A 5 set match would be akin to an entire best of 7.
|
Wow, nice Targa, 6-0'ing his group :D
|
|
|
did the vods for this congress ever get posted anywhere?
|
Its pretty interesting. Especially towards the end where you can see a huge difference between europe and USA where esl and dh have such a huge history and familiarity with each other that they are comfortable with running competitions into each other. Whereas on the north american side Ting and Russell dont know whether they will be around in 3 years and sundance is almost too confident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
