|
On December 21 2012 23:24 Ch3rry wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 11:20 chuky500 wrote:
Which gives us, in case of a rematch :
good reasons (winning both bo3 or having more wins)
bad reasons (having the same number of wins of less)
BTW in normal round robin lets say we have players A, B, C, D. Here's the scores: A 2:1 BC 2:1 D A 0:2 C B 2:0 D A 0:2 D B 2:0 C Final Standing: B: 5:2C: 4:3 D: 3:4 A: 2:5And in this situation will You say that B advances over A for bad reason, because A won vs B??
No, he will say it is good that B advanced, since B has more wins. (B is 2-1 in Bo3s, A is 1-2 in Bo3s)
|
On December 21 2012 23:45 TigerKarl wrote:
So why don't make another poll. I don't think that the results would change. GSL format is the quickest and fairest way to clearly determine 4 placements out of 4 players.
Well, according to the OP the fairest way:
a) the 5th game is not played when the same player meets again (first match winner advances) (doesn't sound fair to me);
b) the 5th match when the same player meets again is Bo5 starting from first match score (maybe more fair than a) but player who lost 0:2 in first game has very slim chances of advancing).
On December 21 2012 23:48 bbm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 23:24 Ch3rry wrote:On December 21 2012 11:20 chuky500 wrote:
Which gives us, in case of a rematch :
good reasons (winning both bo3 or having more wins)
bad reasons (having the same number of wins of less)
BTW in normal round robin lets say we have players A, B, C, D. Here's the scores: A 2:1 BC 2:1 D A 0:2 C B 2:0 D A 0:2 D B 2:0 C Final Standing: B: 5:2C: 4:3 D: 3:4 A: 2:5And in this situation will You say that B advances over A for bad reason, because A won vs B?? No, he will say it is good that B advanced, since B has more wins. (B is 2-1 in Bo3s, A is 1-2 in Bo3s)
And that is exactly what happens in GSL format, which OP has problems with.
|
EDIT: sry for double post  PLS delete this post
|
On December 21 2012 11:20 chuky500 wrote:
First, contrary to popular belief, a GSL group isn't an exact double elimation. In a double elimination the loser bracket is reversed so 2 players can't meet in the next 2 games, while it can happen in a GSL group.
A > B
C > D
A>C (winners final)
D>B
D>C (consolidation final)
I don't really get how it's different from a double elim bracket without a grand final because 2 people qualify? I understand how the loser bracket side is flipped every other round, but that wouldn't happen with 4 players regardless? I'm at work so it's quite possible I'm missing something obvious.
|
On December 21 2012 23:52 Ch3rry wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 23:48 bbm wrote:On December 21 2012 23:24 Ch3rry wrote:On December 21 2012 11:20 chuky500 wrote:
Which gives us, in case of a rematch :
good reasons (winning both bo3 or having more wins)
bad reasons (having the same number of wins of less)
BTW in normal round robin lets say we have players A, B, C, D. Here's the scores: A 2:1 BC 2:1 D A 0:2 C B 2:0 D A 0:2 D B 2:0 C Final Standing: B: 5:2C: 4:3 D: 3:4 A: 2:5And in this situation will You say that B advances over A for bad reason, because A won vs B?? No, he will say it is good that B advanced, since B has more wins. (B is 2-1 in Bo3s, A is 1-2 in Bo3s) And that is exactly what happens in GSL format, which OP has problems with. EDIT: sry for double post
OP only has a problem with the specific scenario where there is a rematch in the final game of GSL format, and the two final players head-to-head scores go the other way from who advances.
In round robin, that will never happen. (ie: a tie in map score and a worse head to head score should always lose the tiebreaker rules)
|
The entire premise is faulty anyway.
If OP is against player with better head to head score advance, does that mean in a round robin format, players who do not advance can only win against other players who don't advance??!
Really, head to head score means very little besides its effect on overall score in a group.
I guess OP just want a giant single elimination bracket for GSL
|
On December 21 2012 22:10 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I thought people actually watches the GSL, instead of looking at liquidpedia, no?
|
The statistical analysis is flawed in the opening post. Sometimes the worse player wins the first BO3. Say this happens 30% of the time. We are more likely to see a rematch when the result of the first match was "wrong" skillwise.
If the better player won the first game he has a 44% chance of losing the winners match*. If the worse one won he'll lose the winners match 64% of the time*.
If the worse player lost match one he'll win match two 44%. If the better player lost match one he'll win match two 64% of the time.
So when the better player won the first match we'll have a rematch 0.44*0.44=0.1936 or 19% of the time.
When the worse player won we'll have a rematch 0.64*0.64=0.4096 or 41% of the time.
Rescaling for the fact that the better player wins match one 70% we get the result
0.70*0.1936 = 0.13552 (52.24% of total)
0.30*0.4096 = 0.12288 (47.76% of total)
What is the interpretation of these numbers? Under our simplified model, when 2 players meet in the final match the winner of the first match is actually the worse player 48% of the time. So we should expect the loser of the first match to win very often, exactly because he is the better player very often.
* To understand where these numbers come from we need to look at the results of the other bracket. I made the same assumption there: the better player wins 70% of the time. If 2 of the better players play in match two both have 50% to advance. Basically there are two types of players in this model: "better" and "worse". Players of the same type score 50% against each other and better beats worse 70% of the time.
|
On December 22 2012 00:09 Arceus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 22:10 ragz_gt wrote: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. I thought people actually watches the GSL, instead of looking at liquidpedia, no?
Not that many people in US can watch GSL with ungodly hour
|
Great, another person that doesn't understand double elimination and thinks his obviously flawed reasoning is worthy of a thread.
|
On December 21 2012 11:28 jmbthirteen wrote:
I really dont care if the player is 2-3 and against the other guy and advances. They aren't playing a bo5. Its two 2 bo3s. I think the GSL system is by far the best out there. I'm glad more and more tournaments are using it.
I agree with this. I hate each other style of group play, especially those that end up in endless tie breaker matches or when casters need to make themselves look like fools in front of cameras counting maps wins, opposed wins and other bullshit tie breaker mechanics.
I would even implement GSL system into other sport group plays (like football). It would make those sports more interesting as playing to tie would be useless, each match would need to have a winner.
|
I think it is fine to think that it is not fair that a worse player may win in the Finals of a group stage, but this is how the system works. It is not a gentlemen's club on the digital battlefield; you either get him, or he gets you and that's all there is to it.
To be honest, I wish they kept the Bo1 matches like in the MSL Survivor group stage, but people argue that *that* is not fair. Apart from Starleague seedings, imagine how much more mystique surrounds players who can consistently crack Ro16 CodeS in a Bo1 format.
Unless he has a tendancy for gimmicky or cheesy play like Kwanro or Shine
>_>
|
well, the player that wins the first match has a 50% shot at advancing first place, while the player that loses first match has a 50% shot at going down to last place (important in code S ro32 becuz 4th placers go straight to ro48 code A), i say its fair the way it is
|
On December 21 2012 13:44 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 13:16 1Dhalism wrote: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.
Hit the nail right on the head. This is why GSL is so prestigious. You can't just walk in with one style and a couple of builds. You need like a playbook of builds so that after you expose said build to your opponents you can just fall back on something else that hits at a different timing or something wonky. So if you don't prepare enough and can't win 2 Bo3's because you were too lazy to study enough to come up with multiple builds against every player you don't deserve to advance.
|
OP made good suggestions, but I think it would be best to just bite the bullet here and accept that the player with fewer wins would advance. I wouldn't mind an extended series, but I don't think GSL will do that.
|
Who advances from the GSL-groups depend on a larger degree on chance than round robin does. Saying otherwise is simply wrong. You are still allowed to prefer the GSL-system, but the system comes with downsides that needs to be acknowledged.
In the GSL-system, bo3 > bo5 in deciding who advances. That is a flaw inherent in the system.
You get a better idea of the strength of each player by having each play each-other. You get a worse idea of the players strength by only letting each play meet two other opponents. That is a weakness in the GSL-system compared to the round-robin format.
Saying otherwise is sticking your head in the sand.
|
Wait a second, so after 2 years of people bitching about extended people are now bitching about GSL format? It offers a good combination of fairness and entertainment I'm all for it.
|
On December 22 2012 01:13 m0ck wrote:
Who advances from the GSL-groups depend on a larger degree on chance than round robin does. Saying otherwise is simply wrong. You are still allowed to prefer the GSL-system, but the system comes with downsides that needs to be acknowledged.
In the GSL-system, bo3 > bo5 in deciding who advances. That is a flaw inherent in the system.
You get a better idea of the strength of each player by having each play each-other. You get a worse idea of the players strength by only letting each play meet two other opponents. That is a weakness in the GSL-system compared to the round-robin format.
Saying otherwise is sticking your head in the sand.
that happens in round robin too
2-1
2-1
2-1
0-3
you don't let them only play 2 opponents all the time and if this happen they just don't play either against the best or worst player of the group which is not a problem.
|
I really appreciate people who go through the lengths of complying this kind of data, but I think you are throwing around terms like "qualified for good/bad reasons" way to loosely. The rules are clearly laid out, the player who advances always does so for a good reason because he won within the rules.
When analyzing this data you should also consider that in the situation where 2 players go 1-1 and meet a second time, it is more likely that they are close in skill, making an 50/50 record for the winner of the first BO3 somewhat expected and acceptable. Add to this that the first BO3 is likely the one that the players have been preparing for the most and that some players excel in matches were players can prepare and some do not, and it becomes more clear that this is just a nuance of a format with both predetermined and non-predetermined opponents, not an inherent flaw.
|
Bisutopia19361 Posts
On December 22 2012 01:18 Nick_54 wrote:
Wait a second, so after 2 years of people bitching about extended people are now bitching about GSL format? It offers a good combination of fairness and entertainment I'm all for it.
Lol, I find this amusing too. This has been discussed to death. Kind of a boring topic now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
