| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Siege Woodpecker
1 Post
On December 21 2012 13:53 RaiKageRyu wrote: Contrary to popular notion, tournaments are not set up to find the best player, it is produced to entertain the spectators. I bet you've found Naniwa's 7 probe rush quite entertaining. | ||
|
Akio00
United States98 Posts
Second observation : when nobody won both bo3, 68% of time the GSL format is wrong about qualifying the concerned player. Either because both players were tied or because the qualified player had less wins. This is a faulty observation that uses statistics to try to make your point. You could easily say 88% (48% winner wins both + 77% of the 52% where the loser wins) of the time they get it right. When it is tied after both matches, who is the say the person that wins 2nd is less deserving? The most important game is the last game. | ||
|
Zennith
United States795 Posts
| ||
|
Mista_Masta
Netherlands557 Posts
Furthermore, the suggestion from the OP is also flawed: How to fix this : First, the GSL group format is perfectly fine until two players have to meet again. This is the only case where the format should be adjusted. -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. In this special case, where it's between B and C, the players A and D have already advanced or been eliminated. They have nothing at stake in the games except to influence who their opponent later in the tournament may be. So they may do another 6 probe rush or similar 'I just wanna go home' strategy. Also, playing out the rest of the round robin can lead to a three-way tie, which really sucks in a four player group, as it can take a while to resolve, which can lead to a conflict in the schedule (not in GSL with one group a day, but in other tournaments, where there are more rounds after the group round in the same or the next day). | ||
|
LawnMower
Sweden557 Posts
On December 21 2012 15:44 Siege Woodpecker wrote: I bet you've found Naniwa's 7 probe rush quite entertaining. It was hilarious. Also, we're still talking about that legendary match. | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
Being good at 1 match up, winning more maps against 1 players or whatever are your criteria doesn't make you a "better" player systematically. Feast is fundamentaly better than Stephano right ? | ||
|
Roman666
Poland1440 Posts
| ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major sport where group stages are used and the winners / losers are split 50/50. (I'm sure there are some.) However... I think the | ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
everything else include "meh i am trough i dont care" or "meh i am out i dont care" games and this is the only way to prevent it 100% ! On December 21 2012 16:43 y0su wrote: Honestly... I don't even see the point of doing group stage where 1/2 of the participants advance (and there's no 'bye' awarded for the top place). If 1/2 the players advance why not just do a standard bracket? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major sport where group stages are used and the winners / losers are split 50/50. (I'm sure there are some.) However... I think the because in a group you have a 2/4 chance to win so you can lose once and still go trough that means 2 very strong player in the same group go trough but having stephano vs Taejja in the 1st round would be in normal mode th k.o of the looser ... or a stupid looserbracket where you have even alot of the same problems in also it means in normal mode you see your favoritve player perhaps max 1 time, in group he have at least 2 games so many reasons for groups ... PS: its the fuckn same in every sport ^^ look football world championchip, you have also groups with 4 and the top2 advances (pps: i dont mean this american handegg no idea what they doing there) | ||
|
Dosey
United States4505 Posts
On December 21 2012 16:46 CoR wrote: but its still the way best format ! everything else include "meh i am trough i dont care" or "meh i am out i dont care" games and this is the only way to prevent it 100% ! PS: its the fuckn same in every sport ^^ look football world championchip, you have also groups with 4 and the top2 advances (pps: i dont mean this american handegg no idea what they doing there) Pfft. Our Handegg does it right. Keeps things exciting homie. Your Football is so aggravatingly boring that you get groups of people from either side to beat the shit out of each other after every match. | ||
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
The winner of the first BO3 already has a huge advantage. He can lose the next BO3 and still have a chance while the loser has to win two BO3s in a row. That gives the winner of the first BO3 a 75% chance of advancing and the loser only a 25% chance. That already was the advantage and it is a huge one, so any additional advantages on top of having a 3x higher chance of advancing would be unfair. The only exception is this: (+ Show Spoiler + 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. but it is only a corner case and really nothing to worry about because a) such groups are rare in general and b) those groups are even more rare in SC2 where usually everyone can lose to everyone because of BO losses / cheese. B/C will always have a shot at taking out A and they will also always have the risk to lose to D. The system is basically flawless. You go 2-0 or 2-1 = you advance. You go 0-2 or 1-2 = you are out. Go GSL and OP you should feel bad. | ||
|
Kazeyonoma
United States2912 Posts
| ||
|
My_Fake_Plastic_Luv
United States257 Posts
| ||
|
Malinor
Germany4732 Posts
I think you have to win when it counts. The argument that a player with a worse map score advances half the time is not even an argument for me. Noone should be interested in map-scores, a map is like a set in tennis. You gotta win the deciding match. At the end of the day, one guy went 1-2 matches and the other 2-1. | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
On December 21 2012 11:47 vthree wrote: Actually, you are wrong about it not being a double elimination bracket just because the players can play each other after 1 game. Your definition of a double elimination bracket (not playing the same player until after 2 games) is incorrect. What double elim does is to TRY to put players that have play against each other farthest alway from the brackets. However, since a bracket of 4 is so small, you end up playing them right away. If brackets are bigger (32, 64, 128), players can be seperate do it take 4,5,6 series for them to meet after playing their first series.. Don't do that, really. You could start with "OP, you are wrong about it not being [....]" instead.  | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
a big reason for that is because in gsl im completely in charge qualifying or not while in normal group it always end up feeling completely random this is speaking as a player myself in a group but also observing i like gsl format more because its easier to comprehend what results need to happen for a specific outcome while in a standard group its close to impossible to know whats going on until the very end after reading rules about map score head to head etc | ||
|
TeeTS
Germany2762 Posts
On December 21 2012 11:20 chuky500 wrote: Then, here's the "unfair" finished GSL style group : A 2-0 B 2-1 C 1-2 D 0-2 C won the first bo3 against B, but because of this B had an easier group than C. Basically you give an advantage to the loser B by matching him against D, the group loser, while the winner C of the 1st bo3 gets to play A, the group winner. But it isn't actually fair either for A who had to play C and D the last 2 players of the group while C had to play A and B the first 2 of the group. If you compare a regular round robin group with a GSL style group, in a regular round robin C wins the tie breaker against B in case of a tie, while in a GSL group format you give the loser B several advantages because he gets an easier 2nd opponent and gets the chance to redeem himself. When there's a rematch, it can be seen as a tie breaker, except one player qualifies by getting a draw 1 bo3 to 1 bo3, while the other player has to win 2 bo3. How to fix this : First, the GSL group format is perfectly fine until two players have to meet again. This is the only case where the format should be adjusted. -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. -Very soft extended series : you rematch B and C in a bo5, where you give the winner of the 1st bo3 1 point to start. -MLG style soft extended series : you rematch B and C in a bo7 while starting from the result of the first bo3. -Double elimination style hard extended series : instead of thinking of games on their own you think of a game being an indivisible bo3. You rematch B and C in a bo3. If C wins he's qualified (he won 2 bo3). If B wins (1 bo3 to 1 bo3) you make a new bo3 where the winner is qualified. Bullshit! Your statistics are nearly 50-50 and you complain? The GSL format is fine, if no players meet twice, it's more or less the same as round robin, but more efficient. If players meet again, another important aspect of professional sports comes into play: bringing your best performance on point. Winning tournaments is not just about skill and it will never be. The ability to bring your best game right when it matters the most is another important factor. And I see absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be the case! | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
Think of larger leagues which operate by the same principle you can lose to a football team twice in a single season, and finish #1 in your league while they finish #10. Nobody complains about that because mathematically the right person finishes ahead, not the one who beats the other. Group play is designed to have the right person advance mathematically. This is also why extended series don't make sense mathematically. | ||
|
divito
Canada1213 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. That's not true at all. It would take more time to type than I have right now, but the proper format is not one or the other. As well as this: On December 21 2012 19:40 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: The mathematical goal of group/league play is not to finish above those you beat, it is to do better overall through playing multiple people/teams. If you win two bo3s and your opponent wins one bo3 it means you have done better. Simple math. The fact that you are 1-1 or at a losing record with him is mathematically entirely irrelevant. Think of larger leagues which operate by the same principle you can lose to a football team twice in a single season, and finish #1 in your league while they finish #10. Nobody complains about that because mathematically the right person finishes ahead, not the one who beats the other. Group play is designed to have the right person advance mathematically. This is also why extended series don't make sense. | ||
|
Mauldo
United States750 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs Solar
Clem vs Classic
Cure vs herO
Reynor vs MaxPax
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Replay Cast
|
|
|
EPT
