EPTwhat is more important: the good entertainment for the viewers or the perfect fairness for the players. And because the viewers pay the GSL's bills, they chose the entertainment with no meaningless games.
Statistics against GSL style group format - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
graNite
Germany4434 Posts
what is more important: the good entertainment for the viewers or the perfect fairness for the players. And because the viewers pay the GSL's bills, they chose the entertainment with no meaningless games. | ||
|
o)_Saurus
Germany260 Posts
On December 21 2012 20:39 DJHelium wrote: Don't think this is true at all. While they might be the reactive race, if zerg players would blindly react to what they've seen in earlier games, they would get abused like crazy. If you look at the results you posted, I think people are more surprised at the fact that those protoss players beat the zerg players in the first place. Stephano, DIMA and ret are generally regarded as stronger. It's not about blindly reacting but about getting knowledge of your opponents behaviour. On a "new" or uncommon map it is for example not always clear where your P opponent places his forge or stargate/twilight etc.. So it might happen that your 1 or 2 suicide overlords don't see anything. After that you watch the replay and do it better in the 2nd set. Same for attack ways or pylon placements. Of course you can argue if it is good or bad that you get a second chance to win a match you only lost before because you had bad scouting/luck with your scouting. But generally I think there are more advantages given for a zerg to play the same player again thanfor protoss or terran against zerg. and btw i dont think dimagas zvp is better than blings pvz and i also think hasu and ret are on equal footsteps at the moment but ofc these are just my personal oppinions  | ||
|
ColtraneL
France248 Posts
On December 21 2012 21:19 graNite wrote: It all comes down to the question: what is more important: the good entertainment for the viewers or the perfect fairness for the players. And because the viewers pay the GSL's bills, they chose the entertainment with no meaningless games. There's no perfect fairness. With meaningless games, you can also have unfair situations when you depend on the victory of a player who is already eliminated to settle a tie situation with another player. I don't think the GSL group stage is unfair if you account for the different weight of each matches. You have to remember that there is not necessarily one bad player who loses 2 matches and in recent seasons, you often have 4 very good players in one group. When you lose your first match, you're not even certain that your opponent is going to be easier since neither you or your previous opponent played against him. So it is not a good strategy to lose on purpose your first match. On the other hand, the player who went through the "loser bracket" has to play one more elimination match which is harder to play mentally. The player from the "winner bracket" has had a longer time to rest, has the first win psychological ascendant on his opponent and had no risk of getting out the tournament until now. If you consider these advantages, it is easier to see a player move on with a 2-3 score. Finally, I think that if there is actually an unfair aspect about GSL group stages, it's the order in which you play. It changes the whole dynamic of the group, allowing you for example to avoid to play the best player and keep your confidence high. It is important, especially for the player who tends to choke. To settle this discussion, GSL has a seeding rule who act differently for each round of group stages. First you place the highest seeded players against the lowest. It gives a harder time to new opponents but it seems to work fine. And during the second round, you have the players picking their opponents one by one. I think it is a fine way to settle those problems, a little bit advantageous for players that have been around for a longer time but it always worked fine for me and create a lot of great head to head. | ||
|
THM
Bulgaria1131 Posts
Not a perfect format, but the best we've got. Extended series would make this a mess I feel. | ||
|
Arceus
Vietnam8333 Posts
Yeah in case ppl doesnt know, GOM has been using the most basic double elimination style. Yup this so-called GSL style is D.O.U.B.L.E E.L.I.M.I.N.A.T.I.O.N style. GOM is probably the 395946812th organizer who adopts this. God damn it | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
On December 21 2012 21:53 Arceus wrote: I cant believe theres still people who argues against double elimination format which has been used for more than a decade (probably way more than that) in esports and real sports and TV shows. Yeah in case ppl doesnt know, GOM has been using the most basic double elimination style. Yup this so-called GSL style is D.O.U.B.L.E E.L.I.M.I.N.A.T.I.O.N style. GOM is probably the 395946812th organizer who adopts this. God damn it It's because how liquipedia format GSL group stage some people don't realize it's a double elimination bracket with 4 players, where both upper bracket winner and lower bracket winner advance. | ||
|
MateShade
Australia736 Posts
| ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
The entire premise that a player who has better head to head results should be ranked higher or qualify is stupid and any conclusion coming from that is silly. In any competition with more than 2 players you frequently encounter situations where A is worse than B head to head but A is ranked higher because of better results against the rest. This is normal and not a problem of any system whatsoever. The player in the GSL who advances is 2-1 the loser 1-2, completely fair.. You could make a point that in a hypothetical group where player A wins 100% and player D loses 100% the first match between player B and C is pointless, since they are garanteed to meet in the last match anyway. This situation is completely hypothetical though and never happens, in reality the winner of the first bo3 had a chance to go 2-0 while the loser had a chance to go 0-2. Head to head results should not be made more important and at most used as tiebreakers in any system. Carrying through results like MLG does is completely rediculous and changes a fair situation into an unfair one, the loser's bracket becomes unequal as it matters who you lost against which it shouldn't really. Someone else put it well by the way. Tournaments are not to determine who the best player is in a fair way, they are first and foremost to create a cool event which spectators want to watch. If you want to determine fair rankings of players you would never go for a knockout type format or have any groups at all, you would just play a swiss style competition. Knockout style however is by far the most interesting in a game like sc2 where draws can't occur (knockout is not so great in games like football where that does happen frequently). Round robin is just a terrible format for small groups. The only advantage is that all matches are known beforehand which makes it easier to schedule and advertise matches, which is pretty important for sports like football. In team sports players don't tend to throw games either as you are always fighting for your spot on the team. In sc2 however scheduling is not a problem at all if you play all matches on the same day and place anyway, plus match throwing or not trying your best is a serious problem with countless matches to prove so. GSL format is the best I think, double elimination with groups so later on players are on equal footing unlike events like MLG where the finals is often not as exciting because one player starts with an advantage. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
While a regame in the last match can result in a situation where a player has overall less wins versus the other and still gets out of the group, it is still fair as the overall performance of both players brought them there. | ||
|
Ch3rry
Poland228 Posts
On December 21 2012 11:20 chuky500 wrote: Which gives us, in case of a rematch : 41+14 = 55 players qualified for good reasons (winning both bo3 or having more wins) 20+10 = 30 players qualified for bad reasons (having the same number of wins of less) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lOF5s.png) The conclusion is in the case of a rematch the GSL format gives wrong results 35% of times. You miss one VERY important point right there: The Player who advance from the group won TWO Best-of-3s. The Player who didn't advance won only ONE Best-of-3. Despite the map score between them, the one with more WINS advance. That is not a BAD REASON. IMHO: GSL format is not perfect, but its the best one there is for group play. EDIT: BTW in normal round robin lets say we have players A, B, C, D. Here's the scores: A 2:1 B C 2:1 D A 0:2 C B 2:0 D A 0:2 D B 2:0 C Final Standing: B: 5:2 C: 4:3 D: 3:4 A: 2:5 And in this situation will You say that B advances over A for bad reason, because A won vs B?? | ||
|
chuky500
France473 Posts
Depending on the results you have 3 possibilities : If both Winners win, they're qualified and the group stage is over. If exactly 1 player won both games, the last game will be 1st Winner vs 2nd Winner, the winner of this game qualifies and -the group stage is over. If neither 1st winners wins again, you then play Winner vs Winner and Loser vs Loser. Such a group can be shorter than a GSL group, provide the drama and as precise as round robin to determine the winner. Also I agree with JJH777 and o)_Saurus when they say the gimmicky player usually loses the 2nd bo3 and that it's most often a zerg. I believe it's even truer for PvZ/ZvP as it's a more gimmicky matchup where both players usually win by hiding buildings or running by. I actually started to count the race of players but then I realised I'd have to weight in the amount of players per race and since I was doing that by hand it would take too long, maybe look irrelevant due to the small sample size and probably look like trolling. edit : actually the group idea is wrong as if exactly 1 player wins both 2 games, you have a rematch | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
On December 21 2012 23:24 Ch3rry wrote: You miss one VERY important point right there: The Player who advance from the group won TWO Best-of-3s. The Player who didn't advance won only ONE Best-of-3. Despite the map score between them, the one with more WINS advance. That is not a BAD REASON. IMHO: GSL format is not perfect, but its the best one there is for group play. This, this and this. For people who think the GSL group format is unfair and that round robin group play is the way to go, I have one question: What do you think is the lesser evil, a group format which might be unfair in regards with that the player who won less maps (not sets) might advance, or a group format in which an already eliminated player has to play against his friend with the fact in mind that if he loses, his friend will advance, and if he wins, his friend is eliminated as well? In fact, here's a poll: Poll: Which is the lesser evil: [double elimination] Player with fewer maps won advances (6) [round robin] Player plays a friend; if he wins friend is eliminated, if he loses friend advances (1) 7 total votes Your vote: Which is the lesser evil: (Vote): [double elimination] Player with fewer maps won advances | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On December 21 2012 20:53 motbob wrote: I hate these kinds of threads. Fancy graphics, lots of text, can be refuted in a few sentences. without the graphics and text you don't fool anyone. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
| ||
|
chuky500
France473 Posts
| ||
|
vthree
Hong Kong8039 Posts
On December 21 2012 23:29 chuky500 wrote: To those saying the GSL format is fair because if you get 2 wins you're qualified if you get 2 loss you're eliminated, I thought of another way of running the group. It would go like this : Winner plays Other Loser, and Other Winner plays Loser. Every game counts. Players have to win 2 games. No rematch. This way the Winner gets the advantage of playing the potential last of the group, while in a GSL group the Loser of the first match is getting this advantage. Depending on the results you have 3 possibilities : If both Winners win, they're qualified and the group stage is over. If exactly 1 player won both games, the last game will be 1st Winner vs 2nd Winner, the winner of this game qualifies and -the group stage is over. If neither 1st winners wins again, you then play Winner vs Winner and Loser vs Loser. Such a group can be shorter than a GSL group, provide the drama and as precise as round robin to determine the winner. Also I agree with JJH777 and o)_Saurus when they say the gimmicky player usually loses the 2nd bo3 and that it's most often a zerg. I believe it's even truer for PvZ/ZvP as it's a more gimmicky matchup where both players usually win by hiding buildings or running by. I actually started to count the race of players but then I realised I'd have to weight in the amount of players per race and since I was doing that by hand it would take too long, maybe look irrelevant due to the small sample size and probably look like trolling. Maybe you should show your new format with player, ABCD. Because I don't think it works at all. | ||
|
TigerKarl
1757 Posts
| ||
|
4tre55
Germany330 Posts
On December 21 2012 23:40 Pokebunny wrote: I don't understand the whole pretense of this post. Why are you assuming that it's bad if someone goes 2-3 against someone and still advances? It's a group, not a head to head... if you want to avoid this you could just do single elim but as everybody knows that is even worse. It's this, meaningless games is always worse than someone winning a best-of-3 advancing. | ||
|
DidYuhim
Ukraine1905 Posts
Majority of votes were against the extended series format finals that is currently used by MLG and IPL. GSL group stage is simple. You just need to win two Bo3's. That's all there is to it. Statistics you showed based on less than a hundred examples are just misleading. The method can't be aplied to such small number of occasions. I really don't like terms "a good reason to qualify" and "bad reason to qualify" you use. It just reminds me of "he did such a retarded thing, so I lost". | ||
|
chuky500
France473 Posts
On December 21 2012 23:41 vthree wrote: Maybe you should show your new format with player, ABCD. Because I don't think it works at all. You're right actually the 2nd option where exactly 1 player wins both game forces a rematch :/ | ||
| ||
