EPTStatistics against GSL style group format - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
| ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
As to the bigger point, there is a very good reason why round robin is not used in the GSL, and GOM has stated it already. There will be situations where players can throw games for their friends/teammates because they have nothing to lose. In those same situations, even if the games aren't thrown, the player has no need to play with any urgency, creating a very boring viewing experience. One way to fix this might be to run round robin with money for each win, but even then, you may experience a teamkill situation. Extended series have been discussed to death, but I think they are terrible. Your argument about the player who lost first receiving an easier draw is actually more applicable in an extended series scenario, because with an extended series, the player who wins the first Bo3 will gain a huge advantage if he happens to face his defeated opponent again later. It creates situations where a player is rewarded for something that is totally out of their control (the results of a match that they are not participating in). Finally, I want to say that even though all matches are played during a "group stage", it does not mean all these matches need to hold equal significance. A qualifying/elimination/ace match is more important than a regular match, that's just the way it always is. If you lose the unimportant match and win the important match, good for you, you turned it on when it mattered. | ||
|
budar
175 Posts
On December 21 2012 11:20 chuky500 wrote: A thread in April discussed whether the GSL group format was flawed or not and at the time 82% people judged that the format was fine. Since then many popular tournaments have adopted it as it is shorter, easier to run and provides more drama. As more groups were played this way we've seen more games leaving that awkward feeling when there's a rematch and the player qualified isn't the one with more wins, such as the WCS finals when Hero had qualified over Stephano despite having a record of 2-3 against him. It happens because when 2 players meet again, the result of the first bo3 is discarded. This means to qualify one player has to beat his opponent in 2 bo3 while the other one qualifies with a 1 bo3 draw. I completely disagree with this. The penalty for losing your first bo3 is that you go down and have to win another game to get into the 2nd place game. You should not be penalized in the 2nd place game in any way (please no extended series). The GSL format is great. The only problem with it is that there is some luck involved with who you play against first, but there is luck in any kind of draw by definition. | ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
On December 22 2012 02:09 Sated wrote: I actually think that even Proleague is trash because its BO1... Terrible suggestion. Huh? While EG master cup has it's own charm, it really have no affect on fairness or not since it's a league, not a tournament | ||
|
Arceus
Vietnam8333 Posts
On December 22 2012 01:48 BisuDagger wrote: Lol, I find this amusing too. This has been discussed to death. Kind of a boring topic now. the most "amusing" thing about this thread is people declaring every tourney should apply "GSL Style".... | ||
|
chuky500
France473 Posts
| ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On December 22 2012 02:02 budar wrote: I completely disagree with this. The penalty for losing your first bo3 is that you go down and have to win another game to get into the 2nd place game. You should not be penalized in the 2nd place game in any way (please no extended series). The GSL format is great. The only problem with it is that there is some luck involved with who you play against first, but there is luck in any kind of draw by definition. That is the benefit of the system and it really is no different than the old BW formats made for TV. On December 22 2012 02:09 Sated wrote: I actually think that even Proleague is trash because its BO1... Terrible suggestion. If we're talking about TV format it really isn't an option. On December 22 2012 02:20 chuky500 wrote: The GSL format is not double elimination. Double elimination is balanced around several points. First, the winners bracket is harder than the losers bracket. To compensate that there are 2 downsides about being in the lower bracket : you can be eliminated at every round and very important you have to play twice as many games as someone in the winners bracket. And to make sure the lower bracket player plays more games, players can't meet 2 rounds after playing each other because the lower bracket is reverted. People seem to forget point 3 and 4 when comparing the GSL format and souble elimination. So GSL is actually double elimination without point 3 and 4. So if you consider double elimination balanced, then removing those points shifts the balance towards the lower bracket. Other guy just told you what the real benefit of the round is and to be frank. If it were up to me and I had an allotted timeslot to use I wouldn't even consider using double elimination. The players are fortunate. If you win the winners good on you. If not you still have an opportunity to move on. This is actually one of our oldest systems we have and it's widely accepted. | ||
|
Arceus
Vietnam8333 Posts
On December 22 2012 02:20 chuky500 wrote: The GSL format is not double elimination. Double elimination is balanced around several points. First, the winners bracket is harder than the losers bracket. To compensate that there are 2 downsides about being in the lower bracket : you can be eliminated at every round and very important you have to play twice as many games as someone in the winners bracket. And to make sure the lower bracket player plays more games, players can't meet 2 rounds after playing each other because the lower bracket is reverted. People seem to forget point 3 and 4 when comparing the GSL format and double elimination but GSL is actually double elimination without point 3 and 4. So if you consider double elimination balanced, then removing those points shifts the balance towards the lower bracket. GSL is a true double elimination bracket, with 4 players. the true meaning of double elimination format is: - a player has two chances, which means, you could only be eliminated by losing TWO matches - one can only face the other for the second time in the grand final (however, this rule is broken quite often due to organizer messing up the seeding process in big bracket (ie 64-man) So yeah, a double-elimination bracket for 2-man tourney is essentially a bo3 by definition. the number of games to be played in LB is not twice. It depends on how big the bracket is you just cant determine if WB is harder than LB. Thats clueless. If any, the only measure for that is number of games, in which LB players always play more So with 2 players advancing from a group of 4, only consolidation final is needed. The grand final of that group of 4 might be played to truly determined 1st place and 2nd place but it would be too excessive for broadcasting. And I guess it's not the problem that ppl here seems to dwell into. | ||
|
Nirel
Israel1526 Posts
| ||
|
vthree
Hong Kong8039 Posts
On December 22 2012 02:20 chuky500 wrote: The GSL format is not double elimination. Double elimination is balanced around several points. First, the winners bracket is harder than the losers bracket. To compensate that there are 2 downsides about being in the lower bracket : you can be eliminated at every round and very important you have to play twice as many games as someone in the winners bracket. And to make sure the lower bracket player plays more games, players can't meet 2 rounds after playing each other because the lower bracket is reverted. People seem to forget point 3 and 4 when comparing the GSL format and double elimination but GSL is actually double elimination without point 3 and 4. So if you consider double elimination balanced, then removing those points shifts the balance towards the lower bracket. Arg... NO... You cannot set your own rules about what double elimination is. The GSL format is by DEFINITION a double elimination format. Although your point 3 and 4 are valid by itself, it is not the core requirement of a double elimination format. Those things just occur when the double elimination format is bigger than 4 players. And players do play more games in the LB. WB winner only plays 2 games while the LB winner has to play 3. | ||
|
Toxi78
966 Posts
what you do basically is that you consider the group winner as untouchable and the group loser as a freewin; it's exactly where you fail : let's assume it's that way : it now means that the first bo3 is meaningless too, since either way (group winner is unbeatable, group loser is a freewin) it will all go down to a last match rematch : it means everything is perfectly balanced. now, considering this claim is false, and you can actually beat the group winner and the group loser can beat you, both players come in the last match with a different path : one had a probability to qualify, while the other had a probability to drop out. thus winning the first bo3 already had an impact, it created an opportunity : positive for the one that won, negative for the one that lost. GSL format is perfectly balanced. | ||
|
PlacidPanda
United States246 Posts
| ||
|
Zenatsu
100 Posts
GRAPHS! Hes legit. | ||
|
Martijn
Netherlands1219 Posts
On December 22 2012 02:20 chuky500 wrote: The GSL format is not double elimination. Double elimination is balanced around several points. First, the winners bracket is harder than the losers bracket. To compensate that there are 2 downsides about being in the lower bracket : you can be eliminated at every round and very important you have to play twice as many games as someone in the winners bracket. And to make sure the lower bracket player plays more games, players can't meet 2 rounds after playing each other because the lower bracket is reverted. People seem to forget point 3 and 4 when comparing the GSL format and double elimination but GSL is actually double elimination without point 3 and 4. So if you consider double elimination balanced, then removing those points shifts the balance towards the lower bracket. No see, all the things you listed are a consequence of a double elimination bracket. A double elimination bracket is a winners/losers bracket system where a loss in the winners bracket knocks you down into the losers bracket before being eliminated (and the lower bracket entry points flip sides every round). Yeah, this means that you can be eliminated after taking a loss and yeah, this means you have to play more matches if you're in the lower bracket. Everything else is just a consequence of the bracket format. GSL Format is a 4 person double elimination bracket without a grand finals as 2 people qualify. No more, no less. If you make a 4 person double elimination bracket, and you take out the grand finals, you've got "GSL Format". Try making a 4 person double elimination bracket and end up with something else, I'll readily point out why it's wrong. | ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
Trasko
Sweden983 Posts
| ||
| ||
