|
On December 21 2012 12:35 Sein wrote:
The thing that's always bothered me about the GSL group stage is that something like this can easily happen (and probably has happened).
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.
In theory, this seems to be unfair. But we have to remember that the best player get upset and you can lose to the weakest player. So by winning the first set, even if you are facing the strongest player, you still have say 20% to advance straight away. And the losing player will have a 20% of losing outright (even against the weakest player). These 2 add up to a HUGE advantage for winning the first set and provides more than enough incentive.
Your scenario only seems unfair if the strongest player has 100% win rate and the weakest have 0%.
|
On December 21 2012 12:58 Goibon wrote:
I don't even agree that this endeavour to determine a 'better player' is worthwhile or possible, let alone justifiable to the extent that one would alter a tournament structure to falicitate it.
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
That's an argument for running a double-elimination tournament (instead of single-elimination), not necessarily for extended series. How (or if) you use match history in rematches or create a Winners Bracket advantage in the finals of a double-elimination tournament is another issue. Also, MLG now sets up their Championship Brackets such that the final is always a Best of 7 starting at 0-0 with players who haven't faced each other earlier in that Bracket. (The extended series and WB/LB stuff that used to happen in the Final now happens in the Semifinals.)
|
On December 21 2012 13:16 1Dhalism wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's unfair to no one. Want to advance? Win 2 series.
Much better than some BS second-chance system to protect favorites or worse, extended series.
|
Personally I hate any kind of extended series, so for me the GSL style is much more preferable and I'm pretty sure a lot of others feel the same.
|
On December 21 2012 13:16 1Dhalism wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Its not unfair if you failed to win 2 Bo3s then you are out. Also a person playing a second Bo3 against somone of same race never mind same opponent either has a different strategy or is giong to face same problem.
Ill explain this by pretending for example I am DRG and I am in a group with Taeja MKP and Polt. I first face Polt and win 2-0 and then play MKP and lose 2-1. What will happen next is I will face either Taeja or Polt again. No matter which player it is my style for that day is either exposed or I came prepared with extra builds so its safe.
|
On December 21 2012 13:00 MonkSEA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 12:32 Wroshe wrote: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. 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.
For the record I don't really care about the format, I'm fine with either one. I'm just preempting anyone who is going to argue against GSL's format but also say extended series is bad.
|
The complaint is similar to complaining that if Germany and Brazil meet in a World Cup final, Brazil doesn't benefit from having defeated Germany in their group stage match. "Old" results at earlier stages in a tournament should ideally count less. And it is the loser's fault if he can't win the last BO3. He technically comes into that last game with an slight advantage. He has the mental upper ground because he already defeated the opponent once. He also had a rest period where he got to observe both potential opponents play (without mentally having to prepare for a different game first).
|
Fair formats are often the most dull formats since you start putting the players in a more scientifically correct method of determining who advances.
Contrary to popular notion, tournaments are not set up to find the best player, it is produced to entertain the spectators.
|
On December 21 2012 11:42 Snorkle wrote:
Winners vs Winners and Losers vs Losers (swiss system) is my favorite format of all time for anything. It does a great job of establishing a "pecking order" with minimum games played.
I agree. There is never a meaningless game. The system never seems unfair to me and provides the most exciting system for spectators. I don't think its broken, so no need to fix it.
|
On December 21 2012 13:53 RaiKageRyu wrote:
Fair formats are often the most dull formats since you start putting the players in a more scientifically correct method of determining who advances.
Contrary to popular notion, tournaments are not set up to find the best player, it is produced to entertain the spectators.
WWF = Entertain
GSL (and alike) = Best Player
|
The simplest thing to do if you don't want meaningless games is just to assign a tie result and not have players play them. That'd work in other formats.
The disadvantage of round robin is you can have a situation where there is no clear distinction between players and you have an awkward tie situation.
The disadvantage here is that in a rematch situation, the first series played between two players is deemed completely pointless. Extended series became silly when it incorporated group stage results (the one stage where you can't get eliminated...) but it was nice that it took into account, that the match up had occurred before. To me, there is no reason a player could go 2-3 against another and still go ahead of him.
|
If you do a full round robin you have the same "problem". The top player might have a losing record against someone who's ranked lower. But that's not unfair. One player might have done better in the head-to-head matches, but the other did better in all the other matches. Those other matches are also relevant to determine who is better. (Maybe the player who edged out the head-to-head matches is only good in one matchup for example.) No one complains about it in traditional sports. The statistics in the OP ignore the fact that the advancing player won a whole other series while the non-advancing player lost one.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Looking for problems where there isn't a problem--TL's favorite pastime.
|
regular round robin > all
|
Extended series in GSL I'm against...takes too long and both players are 1-1 in terms of win/loss. I think the formats fine.
Bo1 in sc2 is way too volatile imo so I like the current format
|
I think the system is fine atm. To be successful you'll have to win when it's MATTER (aka. the final match)
|
On December 21 2012 12:35 Sein wrote:
The thing that's always bothered me about the GSL group stage is that something like this can easily happen (and probably has happened).
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.
In a round-robin group with these four, the winner of the one match between B and C advances outright at 2-1, and both of them get to be stomped by A and stomp D. It sort of ends up the same: yes, in GSL format there's a possibility for B and C to play twice, and only the second match "counts", but as a player presumably you know this going in, so you can plan accordingly.
The situation the GSL-style groups avoid is one where you have three players of similar skill and a player who is either much better or much worse than all three, creating a 3-way tie which necessitates either looking at map score or running a bunch of tiebreaker matches (and in that case they all play again anyway, which is the same issue this thread is trying to solve). Even a map score tiebreaker has its problems from a spectator standpoint: if you know your map score is important, you're less likely to do a risky strategy which might be more interesting to watch.
The GSL format also avoids "wasted" matches: there is never a match involving a player who was eliminated or who is already qualified. (In a group of more than four players, it's not difficult to construct a situation where a match matters to NEITHER player, but matters to some third player.)
|
Statistical analysis is rather irrelevant here and is actually used to obfuscate the point. Statistics can not determine what is fair and what isn't. People do that.
The OP decides what a "good" and "bad" way to qualify is and what the "right" and "wrong" results are, and then makes a chart that says "here's how many people qualified for the wrong reasons" to reinforce his point, but there is no strong argument as to why it should be considered a "wrong" result in the first place. The way I see it, 100% of people qualified for the right reasons,.
It all comes down to the same argument of resolving double-elimination formats that has been rehashed for years. Whether you consider it to be fair or unfair or right or wrong depends entirely on how you choose to look at it, and is ultimately a matter of personal preference.
|
Players prefer it when past results are excluded, as brought up millions of times in extended series discussions.
End of story. GSL format is perfectly fine.
|
On December 21 2012 12:31 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +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
Say what you like, but the RO8/RO4 of the OSL was solid. It's only one datapoint so I won't get carried away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
