EPTSure it leaves a bad taste in your mouth to see someone get 2-0d then win 2-1 to the same person to advance over them but it provides everyone with as fair of a bracket as you can get short of some crazy format where the losers and winners games are played in g1 and g2 then the losers winner g1 plays winners loser g2 for the spot but in a league that revolves around preparation to say "prepare against these three, but you might have to pay against one of these four other people" really goes against the spirit of GSL.
Statistics against GSL style group format - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Stutters695
2610 Posts
Sure it leaves a bad taste in your mouth to see someone get 2-0d then win 2-1 to the same person to advance over them but it provides everyone with as fair of a bracket as you can get short of some crazy format where the losers and winners games are played in g1 and g2 then the losers winner g1 plays winners loser g2 for the spot but in a league that revolves around preparation to say "prepare against these three, but you might have to pay against one of these four other people" really goes against the spirit of GSL. | ||
|
Ammanas
Slovakia2166 Posts
When you lose in GSL style groups, you are punished by having to play another Bo3, which is much more important then other ones. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
| ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 Posts
On December 21 2012 12:10 OfficerRobert wrote: BO1 Round robin is the correct way to do groups. Bo1 is never the correct answer in sc2 | ||
|
Wroshe
Netherlands1051 Posts
On December 21 2012 12:09 SolidMoose wrote: And this is the reason why MLG had extended series. You can't be against extended series AND against this format. Thousand times this. Either you decide on a system that takes into account results from the past or you don't. You can't have it both ways. | ||
|
Sein
United States1811 Posts
Four players: A - Clear favorite B and C - Pretty similar in skill. Will often trade games against one another D - Clear weakest link of the group A advances by going 2-0. B advances by going 2-1. He goes 1-1 against C, but then 1-0 against D. C does not advance by going 1-2. He goes 1-1 against B, but then 0-1 against A. D does not advance by going 0-2. I know people have different opinions on this and I do respect that, but it has not seemed fair to me that B gets to advance by beating the weakest player in the group while C gets stomped by the best player. | ||
|
Zenbrez
Canada5973 Posts
| ||
|
Sikly
United States413 Posts
If anything, I find it very impressive when a person manages to come back and win a bo3 after going 2-0 against someone. It shows a very good ability to analyze games and adjust within a short amount of time. Round Robin formats not only create pointless games, but almost always end up feeling very nasty for multiple players. | ||
|
alQahira
United States511 Posts
| ||
|
GeorgiusRex
Canada16 Posts
-I believe the best way to fix the format is instead of rematching you play the missing games. B and C don't rematch but instead A plays B and C plays D. You end the GSL group like a regular round robin. The advantage is you count the actual results and don't make assumptions about who is better than whom. The downside are it takes more time to organize, it doesn't prevent from 3 way ties and since D is already eliminated he may not be playing at his full potential and he can influence whether his opponent is qualified or not. The downsides are all the reasons that you aren't playing a round-robin in the first place. The issue at hand is that its possible for the player with the smaller head-to-head score to advance, but the format isn't about who can win more head-to-head, but who can avoid losing two series in total, regardless of facing the same opponent twice. Think of it as the quarter-finals of a tournament with a normal double-elimination bracket, but they stop before playing the final match | ||
|
mayneeahk
Canada279 Posts
3 way 2nd place ties every single dreamhack in tough groups is dumb. | ||
|
m0ck
4194 Posts
| ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
Getting knocked down to code a the next season having to battle out of code a the 3rd season and being able to play in code s again the 4th season. its just to volatile imo | ||
|
yrt123
Singapore1246 Posts
On December 21 2012 12:32 Wroshe wrote: Thousand times this. Either you decide on a system that takes into account results from the past or you don't. You can't have it both ways. You can argue for and against extended series (I know nobody's arguing yet, just saying) all you like but both sides have reasonable arguments and neither is ever really going to win on a forum argument. In the end, it depends on what the tournament organiser thinks is better. On OP: The statistic is close to 50% so its not that big of a deal, especially considering the sample size. Another thing to consider in context is that for the first set, neither player have any immediate momentum going into the game. When they meet again, the winner of first set have just come off a loss and the loser have just won his series(more recent as it is played after winner's match but doesn't really matter other than giving the opponent more time to do whatever which some may prefer while some may not). Coming into this match, the first round loser has an edge in momentum as he just came off a win compared to the first round winner. Might be why they win slightly more often. Anyways, while your hard work is appreciated, the statistic does not mean that much when you do not consider the skill level of players involved. Unless the higher skilled players are advancing less from this format compared to players of a lower skill level, the format does not have a problem. So long as higher skilled players advance more often, it is fine. There is always going to be some uncertainty involved but until we see alot of chumps(relative to the top players) advancing over championship contenders alot over a long period, nothing is really wrong with the format. For me personally, I don't see such things happening so I think the format is fine. Besides, round robin format is also used in some tournaments as well. From the most recent tournament that I can recall(WCG), results weren't too pretty for the favored players. | ||
|
Goibon
New Zealand8185 Posts
As i cannot get my head around that, i do not consider there to be a problem. I view every match to be a one off, with the slate wiped clean. It's nice and pure, which is partly what i like about GSL more than the 2-4 day carnival foreigner events. I can accept extended series in the carnival tournaments as it helps ensure that players don't fly there to lose a single series, and it lets us see each player play more games. I still hate that it has an influence when you get to the finals, but it is what it is. edit: not criticising MLG etc, i love the shit out of those tournaments, i just prefer the structured GSL format more | ||
|
MonkSEA
Australia1227 Posts
On December 21 2012 12:32 Wroshe wrote: Thousand times this. Either you decide on a system that takes into account results from the past or you don't. You can't have it both ways. I'm sick of seeing threads of why GSL isn't optimal and not providing a way to make the format any better, just reiterating some form of extended series is needed. I don't think many people have a problem with GSL's format unless one of their favorites gets knocked out. | ||
|
felisconcolori
United States6168 Posts
Still, pretty pie graphs. | ||
|
Najda
United States3765 Posts
On December 21 2012 13:00 MonkSEA wrote: I'm sick of seeing threads of why GSL isn't optimal and not providing a way to make the format any better, just reiterating some form of extended series is needed. I don't think many people have a problem with GSL's format unless one of their favorites gets knocked out. Did you read the end of the post where he made a few different suggestions? | ||
|
1Dhalism
862 Posts
On December 21 2012 12:40 Sikly wrote: If you win one BO3, lose one, than lose another, you are out. It doesn't matter who the BO3's were against, the rules are simple. Don't lose two BO3's, and you advance. People need to get X player vs Y player out of their minds, and think of it as individual series, because that is what it is. In most peoples opinions(based on the poll you referenced), it is the best format. Perhaps it is not flawless, but no format is flawless. If anything, I find it very impressive when a person manages to come back and win a bo3 after going 2-0 against someone. It shows a very good ability to analyze games and adjust within a short amount of time. Round Robin formats not only create pointless games, but almost always end up feeling very nasty for multiple players. That's wrong because this is a strategy game. Because you expose your strategies in set one and give your opponent the chance to study you and capitalize on your mistakes/fix his own in the following games. All in all i think this is a farce. I'd rather see a real double elimination format and skip these groups alltogether. Because this is like double elimination, except unfair to some players. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10366 Posts
| ||
| ||
