Then you'll probably figure out there is people that unlike you, have seen multiple times and can undersrand the merit of the OSL format.
We have seen BO1s all the time in SC2 including the last SC2 OSL. It isn't a matter of not getting the chance to see this format in action, it is just that we have and we disliked it.
On another note will GOM be streaming this along with OGN or are Tastosis sitting this one out?
How many times in the previous OSL was the better player knocked out through cheese in a Bo1? Gom will also be streaming with Tastosis.
Idk, it is a little hard to tell because we didn't know how good a lot of the Kespa players were. All I remember was the games were terrible.
Bo1 doesn't magically make games bad. That makes zero sense. By that logic, you could say that Bo7 is stupid because a lot of GSL finals have been bad.
It doesn't, they are just generally worse in my opinion (and apparently 91% of this forum).
I am obviously still going to give this season a chance, I am just really disappointed that we are three years into this game and some of the best players in the world could get eliminated in just two games from the most prestigious tournament there is (WCS KR).
Most people clearly aren't thinking about this rationally and are just going "Bo1 this is fucking stupid it's now COMPLETELY RANDOM who will make it through and everyone will just cheese and it's a coinflip."
Now your exaggerating. Obviously it won't be completely random and every game won't necessarily be a cheese. There will probably be more randomness and cheesing though.
Even if the games don't turn out to be coin flippy or cheesy I still think that it is very unforgiving to be possibly eliminated after just two loses. I don't want to see my favourite players eliminated because they had 2 games where they didn't play their best and I doubt anyone else does either.
Not to say this will make the entire RO32 crap. I am sure it will be great, I just think it would be better with a different format.
Not exaggerating at all. Some people have literally said that it's now completely random who'll make it through. What about last MLG? Not only was it lose 3 games and you're out, but you only played one person, so if you had a bad match up (Minigun vs Life?) you were just out right away. What about code A? If you lose two games then you're out, and if it's in the Ro48, then you have to go through the prelims, where again if you lose two games then you're out.
It's just the way some things are, and it's the way the OSL has always been. Nobody ever complained about it during Brood War, but since people are used to something different in Starcraft 2, they all freak out about it with absolutely no rationale beyond "It didn't work in 2011" and "The last OSL was bad".
You complain about people who exaggerate and then go on to say the bolded sentence yourself. Hypocrisy much? Especially since your only argument is "it's always been like this in BW", lol.
The rationale, as has been many times stated, is that a sequence of Bo1 makes the more skilled player somewhat more vulnerable to allins/cheese. Of course most of the time the more skilled player will make it through, but Bo1 greatly increases the chances for a cheeser to get through or a lesser player upsetting a championship candidate too easily. That wouldn't be too bad if it was just for some nostalgic Starleague, but this replaces basically the GSL S3, so of course we hold it to a higher standard than if it just was an OSL. You also have to consider that this acts as a qualifier for the next season of WCS, so their messup potentially affects the next season too. That's why a lot of us are upset at this and express their concerns...
Not only did I not complain about people who exaggerate, but that sentence wasn't an exaggeration...? What are you talking about?
You claim that a Bo1 instead of a Bo3 will greatly increase the chances for a cheeser/weaker player to get through. Where are your stats for this? From what I've seen, it'll maybe be a 10% difference. Incidentally, many people aren't even saying this; they simply angrily exclaim that it's bullshit, they hate OGN, it'll just be random who gets through, etc.
PS: responding to my argument that it's worked for 13 years with "lol" isn't particularly persuasive.
On June 14 2013 16:19 Arceus wrote: look like Round of 32 will feature on three maps: Bel'Shir Vestige, Newkirk Remix & Whirlwind It's said to reduce players' burden. Fuck
What? So I'm guessing the opening map will be Bel'Shir Vestige, the loser's/winner's match will be Newkirk, and the final match will be on Whirlwind?
On June 14 2013 09:17 Emzeeshady wrote: [quote] We have seen BO1s all the time in SC2 including the last SC2 OSL. It isn't a matter of not getting the chance to see this format in action, it is just that we have and we disliked it.
On another note will GOM be streaming this along with OGN or are Tastosis sitting this one out?
How many times in the previous OSL was the better player knocked out through cheese in a Bo1? Gom will also be streaming with Tastosis.
Idk, it is a little hard to tell because we didn't know how good a lot of the Kespa players were. All I remember was the games were terrible.
Bo1 doesn't magically make games bad. That makes zero sense. By that logic, you could say that Bo7 is stupid because a lot of GSL finals have been bad.
It doesn't, they are just generally worse in my opinion (and apparently 91% of this forum).
I am obviously still going to give this season a chance, I am just really disappointed that we are three years into this game and some of the best players in the world could get eliminated in just two games from the most prestigious tournament there is (WCS KR).
Most people clearly aren't thinking about this rationally and are just going "Bo1 this is fucking stupid it's now COMPLETELY RANDOM who will make it through and everyone will just cheese and it's a coinflip."
Now your exaggerating. Obviously it won't be completely random and every game won't necessarily be a cheese. There will probably be more randomness and cheesing though.
Even if the games don't turn out to be coin flippy or cheesy I still think that it is very unforgiving to be possibly eliminated after just two loses. I don't want to see my favourite players eliminated because they had 2 games where they didn't play their best and I doubt anyone else does either.
Not to say this will make the entire RO32 crap. I am sure it will be great, I just think it would be better with a different format.
Not exaggerating at all. Some people have literally said that it's now completely random who'll make it through. What about last MLG? Not only was it lose 3 games and you're out, but you only played one person, so if you had a bad match up (Minigun vs Life?) you were just out right away. What about code A? If you lose two games then you're out, and if it's in the Ro48, then you have to go through the prelims, where again if you lose two games then you're out.
It's just the way some things are, and it's the way the OSL has always been. Nobody ever complained about it during Brood War, but since people are used to something different in Starcraft 2, they all freak out about it with absolutely no rationale beyond "It didn't work in 2011" and "The last OSL was bad".
You complain about people who exaggerate and then go on to say the bolded sentence yourself. Hypocrisy much? Especially since your only argument is "it's always been like this in BW", lol.
The rationale, as has been many times stated, is that a sequence of Bo1 makes the more skilled player somewhat more vulnerable to allins/cheese. Of course most of the time the more skilled player will make it through, but Bo1 greatly increases the chances for a cheeser to get through or a lesser player upsetting a championship candidate too easily. That wouldn't be too bad if it was just for some nostalgic Starleague, but this replaces basically the GSL S3, so of course we hold it to a higher standard than if it just was an OSL. You also have to consider that this acts as a qualifier for the next season of WCS, so their messup potentially affects the next season too. That's why a lot of us are upset at this and express their concerns...
Not only did I not complain about people who exaggerate, but that sentence wasn't an exaggeration...? What are you talking about?
You claim that a Bo1 instead of a Bo3 will greatly increase the chances for a cheeser/weaker player to get through. Where are your stats for this? From what I've seen, it'll maybe be a 10% difference. Incidentally, many people aren't even saying this; they simply angrily exclaim that it's bullshit, they hate OGN, it'll just be random who gets through, etc.
PS: responding to my argument that it's worked for 13 years with "lol" isn't particularly persuasive.
You want 'stats' that show that in a bo1 the weaker player is more likely to win than in a bo3? This doesnt make sense. It is obvious that in a single game as opposed to a bo series of games the weaker player has more chance to win. This is basic mathematics and akin to asking for 'stats' to show that 2+2 =4.
On June 14 2013 16:19 Arceus wrote: look like Round of 32 will feature on three maps: Bel'Shir Vestige, Newkirk Remix & Whirlwind It's said to reduce players' burden. Fuck
What? So I'm guessing the opening map will be Bel'Shir Vestige, the loser's/winner's match will be Newkirk, and the final match will be on Whirlwind?
Only ladder maps will be used for the Ro32, while the new OSL-exclusive maps will be introduced in the Ro16. Not surprised, in the past, they have only used the KeSPA maps for the ODT stage and introduced the OMT maps once the Ro16 commenced.
On June 14 2013 16:19 Arceus wrote: look like Round of 32 will feature on three maps: Bel'Shir Vestige, Newkirk Remix & Whirlwind It's said to reduce players' burden. Fuck
What? So I'm guessing the opening map will be Bel'Shir Vestige, the loser's/winner's match will be Newkirk, and the final match will be on Whirlwind?
Only ladder maps will be used for the Ro32, while the new OSL-exclusive maps will be introduced in the Ro16. Not surprised, in the past, they have only used the KeSPA maps for the ODT stage and introduced the OMT maps once the Ro16 commenced.
On June 14 2013 16:19 Arceus wrote: look like Round of 32 will feature on three maps: Bel'Shir Vestige, Newkirk Remix & Whirlwind It's said to reduce players' burden. Fuck
What? So I'm guessing the opening map will be Bel'Shir Vestige, the loser's/winner's match will be Newkirk, and the final match will be on Whirlwind?
Only ladder maps will be used for the Ro32, while the new OSL-exclusive maps will be introduced in the Ro16. Not surprised, in the past, they have only used the KeSPA maps for the ODT stage and introduced the OMT maps once the Ro16 commenced.
On June 14 2013 09:17 Emzeeshady wrote: [quote] We have seen BO1s all the time in SC2 including the last SC2 OSL. It isn't a matter of not getting the chance to see this format in action, it is just that we have and we disliked it.
On another note will GOM be streaming this along with OGN or are Tastosis sitting this one out?
How many times in the previous OSL was the better player knocked out through cheese in a Bo1? Gom will also be streaming with Tastosis.
Idk, it is a little hard to tell because we didn't know how good a lot of the Kespa players were. All I remember was the games were terrible.
Bo1 doesn't magically make games bad. That makes zero sense. By that logic, you could say that Bo7 is stupid because a lot of GSL finals have been bad.
It doesn't, they are just generally worse in my opinion (and apparently 91% of this forum).
I am obviously still going to give this season a chance, I am just really disappointed that we are three years into this game and some of the best players in the world could get eliminated in just two games from the most prestigious tournament there is (WCS KR).
Most people clearly aren't thinking about this rationally and are just going "Bo1 this is fucking stupid it's now COMPLETELY RANDOM who will make it through and everyone will just cheese and it's a coinflip."
Now your exaggerating. Obviously it won't be completely random and every game won't necessarily be a cheese. There will probably be more randomness and cheesing though.
Even if the games don't turn out to be coin flippy or cheesy I still think that it is very unforgiving to be possibly eliminated after just two loses. I don't want to see my favourite players eliminated because they had 2 games where they didn't play their best and I doubt anyone else does either.
Not to say this will make the entire RO32 crap. I am sure it will be great, I just think it would be better with a different format.
Not exaggerating at all. Some people have literally said that it's now completely random who'll make it through. What about last MLG? Not only was it lose 3 games and you're out, but you only played one person, so if you had a bad match up (Minigun vs Life?) you were just out right away. What about code A? If you lose two games then you're out, and if it's in the Ro48, then you have to go through the prelims, where again if you lose two games then you're out.
It's just the way some things are, and it's the way the OSL has always been. Nobody ever complained about it during Brood War, but since people are used to something different in Starcraft 2, they all freak out about it with absolutely no rationale beyond "It didn't work in 2011" and "The last OSL was bad".
You complain about people who exaggerate and then go on to say the bolded sentence yourself. Hypocrisy much? Especially since your only argument is "it's always been like this in BW", lol.
The rationale, as has been many times stated, is that a sequence of Bo1 makes the more skilled player somewhat more vulnerable to allins/cheese. Of course most of the time the more skilled player will make it through, but Bo1 greatly increases the chances for a cheeser to get through or a lesser player upsetting a championship candidate too easily. That wouldn't be too bad if it was just for some nostalgic Starleague, but this replaces basically the GSL S3, so of course we hold it to a higher standard than if it just was an OSL. You also have to consider that this acts as a qualifier for the next season of WCS, so their messup potentially affects the next season too. That's why a lot of us are upset at this and express their concerns...
Not only did I not complain about people who exaggerate, but that sentence wasn't an exaggeration...? What are you talking about?
You claim that a Bo1 instead of a Bo3 will greatly increase the chances for a cheeser/weaker player to get through. Where are your stats for this? From what I've seen, it'll maybe be a 10% difference. Incidentally, many people aren't even saying this; they simply angrily exclaim that it's bullshit, they hate OGN, it'll just be random who gets through, etc.
PS: responding to my argument that it's worked for 13 years with "lol" isn't particularly persuasive.
Sorry if the "lol" offended you, I edited it out I personally just find the line of argumentation of "we have always done it that way" or "it is tradition" never convincing at all (considering we are talking about completely different games).
What I meant is: People complain that this will mean "complete randomness" (which is an exaggeration) which you critize and go on to say that we critics "all freak out about it with absolutely no rationale" (which is also an exaggeration). Here you are being hypocritical...
The ~10% came from an Aligulac estimation, which does not take the mind games and BO gambles of a BoX series into consideration at all, which makes it basically impossible to put a hard number on this. But even if we believe the ~10%, in a whole group with a losers bracket, so a sequence of events, this increases the likelyhood of an "undeserving" player (I'm aware this is a vague term, yet I think most will know what I mean) quite a bit, even though 10% doesn't sound like a lot. To me, it just means an unnecessary increase in volatility/randomness.
The only argument for the Bo1 that I buy into is the one by BlindRawr, that a TV production puts some more limits on it, regarding time etc. I don't have any experience with this, and here their 13 years of experience come into play, and we just have to trust them - yet still the fundamental flaws of Bo1 remain, which is all I'm critizising.
How many times in the previous OSL was the better player knocked out through cheese in a Bo1? Gom will also be streaming with Tastosis.
Idk, it is a little hard to tell because we didn't know how good a lot of the Kespa players were. All I remember was the games were terrible.
Bo1 doesn't magically make games bad. That makes zero sense. By that logic, you could say that Bo7 is stupid because a lot of GSL finals have been bad.
It doesn't, they are just generally worse in my opinion (and apparently 91% of this forum).
I am obviously still going to give this season a chance, I am just really disappointed that we are three years into this game and some of the best players in the world could get eliminated in just two games from the most prestigious tournament there is (WCS KR).
Most people clearly aren't thinking about this rationally and are just going "Bo1 this is fucking stupid it's now COMPLETELY RANDOM who will make it through and everyone will just cheese and it's a coinflip."
Now your exaggerating. Obviously it won't be completely random and every game won't necessarily be a cheese. There will probably be more randomness and cheesing though.
Even if the games don't turn out to be coin flippy or cheesy I still think that it is very unforgiving to be possibly eliminated after just two loses. I don't want to see my favourite players eliminated because they had 2 games where they didn't play their best and I doubt anyone else does either.
Not to say this will make the entire RO32 crap. I am sure it will be great, I just think it would be better with a different format.
Not exaggerating at all. Some people have literally said that it's now completely random who'll make it through. What about last MLG? Not only was it lose 3 games and you're out, but you only played one person, so if you had a bad match up (Minigun vs Life?) you were just out right away. What about code A? If you lose two games then you're out, and if it's in the Ro48, then you have to go through the prelims, where again if you lose two games then you're out.
It's just the way some things are, and it's the way the OSL has always been. Nobody ever complained about it during Brood War, but since people are used to something different in Starcraft 2, they all freak out about it with absolutely no rationale beyond "It didn't work in 2011" and "The last OSL was bad".
You complain about people who exaggerate and then go on to say the bolded sentence yourself. Hypocrisy much? Especially since your only argument is "it's always been like this in BW", lol.
The rationale, as has been many times stated, is that a sequence of Bo1 makes the more skilled player somewhat more vulnerable to allins/cheese. Of course most of the time the more skilled player will make it through, but Bo1 greatly increases the chances for a cheeser to get through or a lesser player upsetting a championship candidate too easily. That wouldn't be too bad if it was just for some nostalgic Starleague, but this replaces basically the GSL S3, so of course we hold it to a higher standard than if it just was an OSL. You also have to consider that this acts as a qualifier for the next season of WCS, so their messup potentially affects the next season too. That's why a lot of us are upset at this and express their concerns...
Not only did I not complain about people who exaggerate, but that sentence wasn't an exaggeration...? What are you talking about?
You claim that a Bo1 instead of a Bo3 will greatly increase the chances for a cheeser/weaker player to get through. Where are your stats for this? From what I've seen, it'll maybe be a 10% difference. Incidentally, many people aren't even saying this; they simply angrily exclaim that it's bullshit, they hate OGN, it'll just be random who gets through, etc.
PS: responding to my argument that it's worked for 13 years with "lol" isn't particularly persuasive.
You want 'stats' that show that in a bo1 the weaker player is more likely to win than in a bo3? This doesnt make sense. It is obvious that in a single game as opposed to a bo series of games the weaker player has more chance to win. This is basic mathematics and akin to asking for 'stats' to show that 2+2 =4.
No, I said I wanted stats to show that it greatly increases their chances. I said right there in my post that the weaker player has a better chance in a Bo1.
On June 14 2013 09:52 Emzeeshady wrote: [quote] Idk, it is a little hard to tell because we didn't know how good a lot of the Kespa players were. All I remember was the games were terrible.
Bo1 doesn't magically make games bad. That makes zero sense. By that logic, you could say that Bo7 is stupid because a lot of GSL finals have been bad.
It doesn't, they are just generally worse in my opinion (and apparently 91% of this forum).
I am obviously still going to give this season a chance, I am just really disappointed that we are three years into this game and some of the best players in the world could get eliminated in just two games from the most prestigious tournament there is (WCS KR).
Most people clearly aren't thinking about this rationally and are just going "Bo1 this is fucking stupid it's now COMPLETELY RANDOM who will make it through and everyone will just cheese and it's a coinflip."
Now your exaggerating. Obviously it won't be completely random and every game won't necessarily be a cheese. There will probably be more randomness and cheesing though.
Even if the games don't turn out to be coin flippy or cheesy I still think that it is very unforgiving to be possibly eliminated after just two loses. I don't want to see my favourite players eliminated because they had 2 games where they didn't play their best and I doubt anyone else does either.
Not to say this will make the entire RO32 crap. I am sure it will be great, I just think it would be better with a different format.
Not exaggerating at all. Some people have literally said that it's now completely random who'll make it through. What about last MLG? Not only was it lose 3 games and you're out, but you only played one person, so if you had a bad match up (Minigun vs Life?) you were just out right away. What about code A? If you lose two games then you're out, and if it's in the Ro48, then you have to go through the prelims, where again if you lose two games then you're out.
It's just the way some things are, and it's the way the OSL has always been. Nobody ever complained about it during Brood War, but since people are used to something different in Starcraft 2, they all freak out about it with absolutely no rationale beyond "It didn't work in 2011" and "The last OSL was bad".
You complain about people who exaggerate and then go on to say the bolded sentence yourself. Hypocrisy much? Especially since your only argument is "it's always been like this in BW", lol.
The rationale, as has been many times stated, is that a sequence of Bo1 makes the more skilled player somewhat more vulnerable to allins/cheese. Of course most of the time the more skilled player will make it through, but Bo1 greatly increases the chances for a cheeser to get through or a lesser player upsetting a championship candidate too easily. That wouldn't be too bad if it was just for some nostalgic Starleague, but this replaces basically the GSL S3, so of course we hold it to a higher standard than if it just was an OSL. You also have to consider that this acts as a qualifier for the next season of WCS, so their messup potentially affects the next season too. That's why a lot of us are upset at this and express their concerns...
Not only did I not complain about people who exaggerate, but that sentence wasn't an exaggeration...? What are you talking about?
You claim that a Bo1 instead of a Bo3 will greatly increase the chances for a cheeser/weaker player to get through. Where are your stats for this? From what I've seen, it'll maybe be a 10% difference. Incidentally, many people aren't even saying this; they simply angrily exclaim that it's bullshit, they hate OGN, it'll just be random who gets through, etc.
PS: responding to my argument that it's worked for 13 years with "lol" isn't particularly persuasive.
You want 'stats' that show that in a bo1 the weaker player is more likely to win than in a bo3? This doesnt make sense. It is obvious that in a single game as opposed to a bo series of games the weaker player has more chance to win. This is basic mathematics and akin to asking for 'stats' to show that 2+2 =4.
No, I said I wanted stats to show that it greatly increases their chances. I said right there in my post that the weaker player has a better chance in a Bo1.
well statistically, say player X has a 20% chance by cheese or otherwise to take a map against player Y in a bo1 -> 20% chance to win. in a bo3 -> 10.4% chance to win (i think)
How many times in the previous OSL was the better player knocked out through cheese in a Bo1? Gom will also be streaming with Tastosis.
Idk, it is a little hard to tell because we didn't know how good a lot of the Kespa players were. All I remember was the games were terrible.
Bo1 doesn't magically make games bad. That makes zero sense. By that logic, you could say that Bo7 is stupid because a lot of GSL finals have been bad.
It doesn't, they are just generally worse in my opinion (and apparently 91% of this forum).
I am obviously still going to give this season a chance, I am just really disappointed that we are three years into this game and some of the best players in the world could get eliminated in just two games from the most prestigious tournament there is (WCS KR).
Most people clearly aren't thinking about this rationally and are just going "Bo1 this is fucking stupid it's now COMPLETELY RANDOM who will make it through and everyone will just cheese and it's a coinflip."
Now your exaggerating. Obviously it won't be completely random and every game won't necessarily be a cheese. There will probably be more randomness and cheesing though.
Even if the games don't turn out to be coin flippy or cheesy I still think that it is very unforgiving to be possibly eliminated after just two loses. I don't want to see my favourite players eliminated because they had 2 games where they didn't play their best and I doubt anyone else does either.
Not to say this will make the entire RO32 crap. I am sure it will be great, I just think it would be better with a different format.
Not exaggerating at all. Some people have literally said that it's now completely random who'll make it through. What about last MLG? Not only was it lose 3 games and you're out, but you only played one person, so if you had a bad match up (Minigun vs Life?) you were just out right away. What about code A? If you lose two games then you're out, and if it's in the Ro48, then you have to go through the prelims, where again if you lose two games then you're out.
It's just the way some things are, and it's the way the OSL has always been. Nobody ever complained about it during Brood War, but since people are used to something different in Starcraft 2, they all freak out about it with absolutely no rationale beyond "It didn't work in 2011" and "The last OSL was bad".
You complain about people who exaggerate and then go on to say the bolded sentence yourself. Hypocrisy much? Especially since your only argument is "it's always been like this in BW", lol.
The rationale, as has been many times stated, is that a sequence of Bo1 makes the more skilled player somewhat more vulnerable to allins/cheese. Of course most of the time the more skilled player will make it through, but Bo1 greatly increases the chances for a cheeser to get through or a lesser player upsetting a championship candidate too easily. That wouldn't be too bad if it was just for some nostalgic Starleague, but this replaces basically the GSL S3, so of course we hold it to a higher standard than if it just was an OSL. You also have to consider that this acts as a qualifier for the next season of WCS, so their messup potentially affects the next season too. That's why a lot of us are upset at this and express their concerns...
Not only did I not complain about people who exaggerate, but that sentence wasn't an exaggeration...? What are you talking about?
You claim that a Bo1 instead of a Bo3 will greatly increase the chances for a cheeser/weaker player to get through. Where are your stats for this? From what I've seen, it'll maybe be a 10% difference. Incidentally, many people aren't even saying this; they simply angrily exclaim that it's bullshit, they hate OGN, it'll just be random who gets through, etc.
PS: responding to my argument that it's worked for 13 years with "lol" isn't particularly persuasive.
Sorry if the "lol" offended you, I edited it out I personally just find the line of argumentation of "we have always done it that way" or "it is tradition" never convincing at all (considering we are talking about completely different games).
What I meant is: People complain that this will mean "complete randomness" (which is an exaggeration) which you critize and go on to say that we critics "all freak out about it with absolutely no rationale" (which is also an exaggeration). Here you are being hypocritical...
The ~10% came from an Aligulac estimation, which does not take the mind games and BO gambles of a BoX series into consideration at all, which makes it basically impossible to put a hard number on this. But even if we believe the ~10%, in a whole group with a losers bracket, so a sequence of events, this increases the likelyhood of an "undeserving" player (I'm aware this is a vague term, yet I think most will know what I mean) quite a bit, even though 10% doesn't sound like a lot. To me, it just means an unnecessary increase in volatility/randomness.
The only argument for the Bo1 that I buy into is the one by BlindRawr, that a TV production puts some more limits on it, regarding time etc. I don't have any experience with this, and here their 13 years of experience come into play, and we just have to trust them - yet still the fundamental flaws of Bo1 remain, which is all I'm critizising.
I obviously didn't mean that every single person is doing that, but I see a lot of people in this thread that are. Just a couple of examples:
Best of 1....need gtfo seriously. What a joke that is fml. Thanks for ruining the RO32 OSL, i appreciate it. I won't be tuning in until the RO16, which will be a lottery.
it's bo1 format in the first round so it's completely pointless and quite frankly stupid to talk about.
I never said there's anything wrong with disliking the format or thinking that this gives the weaker player a better chance to make it through. The people I have a problem with are those who just rage at it and talk about how stupid and pointless the entire tournament is as a result.
I think that saying that that's the way they've always done the tournament is a perfectly legitimate argument. As has been said, the fact that it's a TV station instead of being broadcast solely through the internet means that there may be some time restraints, and if it's always worked fine for Brood War and it worked fine for the first Starcraft 2 OSL, why shouldn't it work fine this time as well? If it really does turn out badly, then ok, but people should at least wait to see how it goes before dismissing the entire thing just because the format is different.
On June 14 2013 09:17 Emzeeshady wrote: [quote] We have seen BO1s all the time in SC2 including the last SC2 OSL. It isn't a matter of not getting the chance to see this format in action, it is just that we have and we disliked it.
On another note will GOM be streaming this along with OGN or are Tastosis sitting this one out?
How many times in the previous OSL was the better player knocked out through cheese in a Bo1? Gom will also be streaming with Tastosis.
Idk, it is a little hard to tell because we didn't know how good a lot of the Kespa players were. All I remember was the games were terrible.
Bo1 doesn't magically make games bad. That makes zero sense. By that logic, you could say that Bo7 is stupid because a lot of GSL finals have been bad.
It doesn't, they are just generally worse in my opinion (and apparently 91% of this forum).
I am obviously still going to give this season a chance, I am just really disappointed that we are three years into this game and some of the best players in the world could get eliminated in just two games from the most prestigious tournament there is (WCS KR).
Most people clearly aren't thinking about this rationally and are just going "Bo1 this is fucking stupid it's now COMPLETELY RANDOM who will make it through and everyone will just cheese and it's a coinflip."
Now your exaggerating. Obviously it won't be completely random and every game won't necessarily be a cheese. There will probably be more randomness and cheesing though.
Even if the games don't turn out to be coin flippy or cheesy I still think that it is very unforgiving to be possibly eliminated after just two loses. I don't want to see my favourite players eliminated because they had 2 games where they didn't play their best and I doubt anyone else does either.
Not to say this will make the entire RO32 crap. I am sure it will be great, I just think it would be better with a different format.
Not exaggerating at all. Some people have literally said that it's now completely random who'll make it through. What about last MLG? Not only was it lose 3 games and you're out, but you only played one person, so if you had a bad match up (Minigun vs Life?) you were just out right away. What about code A? If you lose two games then you're out, and if it's in the Ro48, then you have to go through the prelims, where again if you lose two games then you're out.
It's just the way some things are, and it's the way the OSL has always been. Nobody ever complained about it during Brood War, but since people are used to something different in Starcraft 2, they all freak out about it with absolutely no rationale beyond "It didn't work in 2011" and "The last OSL was bad".
You complain about people who exaggerate and then go on to say the bolded sentence yourself. Hypocrisy much? Especially since your only argument is "it's always been like this in BW", lol.
The rationale, as has been many times stated, is that a sequence of Bo1 makes the more skilled player somewhat more vulnerable to allins/cheese. Of course most of the time the more skilled player will make it through, but Bo1 greatly increases the chances for a cheeser to get through or a lesser player upsetting a championship candidate too easily. That wouldn't be too bad if it was just for some nostalgic Starleague, but this replaces basically the GSL S3, so of course we hold it to a higher standard than if it just was an OSL. You also have to consider that this acts as a qualifier for the next season of WCS, so their messup potentially affects the next season too. That's why a lot of us are upset at this and express their concerns...
Not only did I not complain about people who exaggerate, but that sentence wasn't an exaggeration...? What are you talking about?
You claim that a Bo1 instead of a Bo3 will greatly increase the chances for a cheeser/weaker player to get through. Where are your stats for this? From what I've seen, it'll maybe be a 10% difference. Incidentally, many people aren't even saying this; they simply angrily exclaim that it's bullshit, they hate OGN, it'll just be random who gets through, etc.
PS: responding to my argument that it's worked for 13 years with "lol" isn't particularly persuasive.
You don't need stats, it is basic arithmetic. If a player only has a 20% chance to win a game, then he has a 20% chance to win a b01 but only a 10.4% chance to win a b03. Even at 60/40, the weaker player only has a 35.2% chance to win a b03. A bo3 always gives an advantage to the player who is more likely to win.
An other thing, besides increasing the possibility of an "undeserving" player winning against a "better" one, is lack of uniformity between the different leagues which could harm the recognizability of the WCS as a whole. One could argue though, that a solution to this problem is to just change all the other leagues to match the OSL. + Show Spoiler +
How many times in the previous OSL was the better player knocked out through cheese in a Bo1? Gom will also be streaming with Tastosis.
Idk, it is a little hard to tell because we didn't know how good a lot of the Kespa players were. All I remember was the games were terrible.
Bo1 doesn't magically make games bad. That makes zero sense. By that logic, you could say that Bo7 is stupid because a lot of GSL finals have been bad.
It doesn't, they are just generally worse in my opinion (and apparently 91% of this forum).
I am obviously still going to give this season a chance, I am just really disappointed that we are three years into this game and some of the best players in the world could get eliminated in just two games from the most prestigious tournament there is (WCS KR).
Most people clearly aren't thinking about this rationally and are just going "Bo1 this is fucking stupid it's now COMPLETELY RANDOM who will make it through and everyone will just cheese and it's a coinflip."
Now your exaggerating. Obviously it won't be completely random and every game won't necessarily be a cheese. There will probably be more randomness and cheesing though.
Even if the games don't turn out to be coin flippy or cheesy I still think that it is very unforgiving to be possibly eliminated after just two loses. I don't want to see my favourite players eliminated because they had 2 games where they didn't play their best and I doubt anyone else does either.
Not to say this will make the entire RO32 crap. I am sure it will be great, I just think it would be better with a different format.
Not exaggerating at all. Some people have literally said that it's now completely random who'll make it through. What about last MLG? Not only was it lose 3 games and you're out, but you only played one person, so if you had a bad match up (Minigun vs Life?) you were just out right away. What about code A? If you lose two games then you're out, and if it's in the Ro48, then you have to go through the prelims, where again if you lose two games then you're out.
It's just the way some things are, and it's the way the OSL has always been. Nobody ever complained about it during Brood War, but since people are used to something different in Starcraft 2, they all freak out about it with absolutely no rationale beyond "It didn't work in 2011" and "The last OSL was bad".
You complain about people who exaggerate and then go on to say the bolded sentence yourself. Hypocrisy much? Especially since your only argument is "it's always been like this in BW", lol.
The rationale, as has been many times stated, is that a sequence of Bo1 makes the more skilled player somewhat more vulnerable to allins/cheese. Of course most of the time the more skilled player will make it through, but Bo1 greatly increases the chances for a cheeser to get through or a lesser player upsetting a championship candidate too easily. That wouldn't be too bad if it was just for some nostalgic Starleague, but this replaces basically the GSL S3, so of course we hold it to a higher standard than if it just was an OSL. You also have to consider that this acts as a qualifier for the next season of WCS, so their messup potentially affects the next season too. That's why a lot of us are upset at this and express their concerns...
Not only did I not complain about people who exaggerate, but that sentence wasn't an exaggeration...? What are you talking about?
You claim that a Bo1 instead of a Bo3 will greatly increase the chances for a cheeser/weaker player to get through. Where are your stats for this? From what I've seen, it'll maybe be a 10% difference. Incidentally, many people aren't even saying this; they simply angrily exclaim that it's bullshit, they hate OGN, it'll just be random who gets through, etc.
PS: responding to my argument that it's worked for 13 years with "lol" isn't particularly persuasive.
You don't need stats, it is basic arithmetic. If a player only has a 20% chance to win a game, then he has a 20% chance to win a b01 but only a 10.4% chance to win a b03. Even at 60/40, the weaker player only has a 35.2% chance to win a b03. A bo3 always gives an advantage to the player who is more likely to win.
Once again, obviously a Bo1 gives the weaker player a better chance to advance. I asked for proof that it GREATLY increases their chances.
On June 14 2013 09:52 Emzeeshady wrote: [quote] Idk, it is a little hard to tell because we didn't know how good a lot of the Kespa players were. All I remember was the games were terrible.
Bo1 doesn't magically make games bad. That makes zero sense. By that logic, you could say that Bo7 is stupid because a lot of GSL finals have been bad.
It doesn't, they are just generally worse in my opinion (and apparently 91% of this forum).
I am obviously still going to give this season a chance, I am just really disappointed that we are three years into this game and some of the best players in the world could get eliminated in just two games from the most prestigious tournament there is (WCS KR).
Most people clearly aren't thinking about this rationally and are just going "Bo1 this is fucking stupid it's now COMPLETELY RANDOM who will make it through and everyone will just cheese and it's a coinflip."
Now your exaggerating. Obviously it won't be completely random and every game won't necessarily be a cheese. There will probably be more randomness and cheesing though.
Even if the games don't turn out to be coin flippy or cheesy I still think that it is very unforgiving to be possibly eliminated after just two loses. I don't want to see my favourite players eliminated because they had 2 games where they didn't play their best and I doubt anyone else does either.
Not to say this will make the entire RO32 crap. I am sure it will be great, I just think it would be better with a different format.
Not exaggerating at all. Some people have literally said that it's now completely random who'll make it through. What about last MLG? Not only was it lose 3 games and you're out, but you only played one person, so if you had a bad match up (Minigun vs Life?) you were just out right away. What about code A? If you lose two games then you're out, and if it's in the Ro48, then you have to go through the prelims, where again if you lose two games then you're out.
It's just the way some things are, and it's the way the OSL has always been. Nobody ever complained about it during Brood War, but since people are used to something different in Starcraft 2, they all freak out about it with absolutely no rationale beyond "It didn't work in 2011" and "The last OSL was bad".
You complain about people who exaggerate and then go on to say the bolded sentence yourself. Hypocrisy much? Especially since your only argument is "it's always been like this in BW", lol.
The rationale, as has been many times stated, is that a sequence of Bo1 makes the more skilled player somewhat more vulnerable to allins/cheese. Of course most of the time the more skilled player will make it through, but Bo1 greatly increases the chances for a cheeser to get through or a lesser player upsetting a championship candidate too easily. That wouldn't be too bad if it was just for some nostalgic Starleague, but this replaces basically the GSL S3, so of course we hold it to a higher standard than if it just was an OSL. You also have to consider that this acts as a qualifier for the next season of WCS, so their messup potentially affects the next season too. That's why a lot of us are upset at this and express their concerns...
Not only did I not complain about people who exaggerate, but that sentence wasn't an exaggeration...? What are you talking about?
You claim that a Bo1 instead of a Bo3 will greatly increase the chances for a cheeser/weaker player to get through. Where are your stats for this? From what I've seen, it'll maybe be a 10% difference. Incidentally, many people aren't even saying this; they simply angrily exclaim that it's bullshit, they hate OGN, it'll just be random who gets through, etc.
PS: responding to my argument that it's worked for 13 years with "lol" isn't particularly persuasive.
You don't need stats, it is basic arithmetic. If a player only has a 20% chance to win a game, then he has a 20% chance to win a b01 but only a 10.4% chance to win a b03. Even at 60/40, the weaker player only has a 35.2% chance to win a b03. A bo3 always gives an advantage to the player who is more likely to win.
Once again, obviously a Bo1 gives the weaker player a better chance to advance. I asked for proof that it GREATLY increases their chances.
a 80-20 split probably isn't too uncommon to have (e.g. i'd bet that bogus can probably beat shine 4/5 times) but doubling the chances to advance from 10% to 20% is pretty significant in my eyes. dno if you call that great or not though
Bo1 doesn't magically make games bad. That makes zero sense. By that logic, you could say that Bo7 is stupid because a lot of GSL finals have been bad.
It doesn't, they are just generally worse in my opinion (and apparently 91% of this forum).
I am obviously still going to give this season a chance, I am just really disappointed that we are three years into this game and some of the best players in the world could get eliminated in just two games from the most prestigious tournament there is (WCS KR).
Most people clearly aren't thinking about this rationally and are just going "Bo1 this is fucking stupid it's now COMPLETELY RANDOM who will make it through and everyone will just cheese and it's a coinflip."
Now your exaggerating. Obviously it won't be completely random and every game won't necessarily be a cheese. There will probably be more randomness and cheesing though.
Even if the games don't turn out to be coin flippy or cheesy I still think that it is very unforgiving to be possibly eliminated after just two loses. I don't want to see my favourite players eliminated because they had 2 games where they didn't play their best and I doubt anyone else does either.
Not to say this will make the entire RO32 crap. I am sure it will be great, I just think it would be better with a different format.
Not exaggerating at all. Some people have literally said that it's now completely random who'll make it through. What about last MLG? Not only was it lose 3 games and you're out, but you only played one person, so if you had a bad match up (Minigun vs Life?) you were just out right away. What about code A? If you lose two games then you're out, and if it's in the Ro48, then you have to go through the prelims, where again if you lose two games then you're out.
It's just the way some things are, and it's the way the OSL has always been. Nobody ever complained about it during Brood War, but since people are used to something different in Starcraft 2, they all freak out about it with absolutely no rationale beyond "It didn't work in 2011" and "The last OSL was bad".
You complain about people who exaggerate and then go on to say the bolded sentence yourself. Hypocrisy much? Especially since your only argument is "it's always been like this in BW", lol.
The rationale, as has been many times stated, is that a sequence of Bo1 makes the more skilled player somewhat more vulnerable to allins/cheese. Of course most of the time the more skilled player will make it through, but Bo1 greatly increases the chances for a cheeser to get through or a lesser player upsetting a championship candidate too easily. That wouldn't be too bad if it was just for some nostalgic Starleague, but this replaces basically the GSL S3, so of course we hold it to a higher standard than if it just was an OSL. You also have to consider that this acts as a qualifier for the next season of WCS, so their messup potentially affects the next season too. That's why a lot of us are upset at this and express their concerns...
Not only did I not complain about people who exaggerate, but that sentence wasn't an exaggeration...? What are you talking about?
You claim that a Bo1 instead of a Bo3 will greatly increase the chances for a cheeser/weaker player to get through. Where are your stats for this? From what I've seen, it'll maybe be a 10% difference. Incidentally, many people aren't even saying this; they simply angrily exclaim that it's bullshit, they hate OGN, it'll just be random who gets through, etc.
PS: responding to my argument that it's worked for 13 years with "lol" isn't particularly persuasive.
You don't need stats, it is basic arithmetic. If a player only has a 20% chance to win a game, then he has a 20% chance to win a b01 but only a 10.4% chance to win a b03. Even at 60/40, the weaker player only has a 35.2% chance to win a b03. A bo3 always gives an advantage to the player who is more likely to win.
Once again, obviously a Bo1 gives the weaker player a better chance to advance. I asked for proof that it GREATLY increases their chances.
a 80-20 split probably isn't too uncommon to have (e.g. i'd bet that bogus can probably beat shine 4/5 times) but doubling the chances to advance from 10% to 20% is pretty significant in my eyes. dno if you call that great or not though
Saying doubling is not very useful though : for the advantaged player, this is a 8/9th disadvantage, nothing to complain about, which number is more significant as a spectator ? A more interesting but a bit more complicated thing to compute would be something like the average number of let's say supplementary top8 player that would be eliminated in the round of 32 with bo1s instead of a bo3s, using Aligulac ratings... I'd venture it wouldn't be much higher than 1.
On June 14 2013 10:47 Emzeeshady wrote: [quote] It doesn't, they are just generally worse in my opinion (and apparently 91% of this forum).
I am obviously still going to give this season a chance, I am just really disappointed that we are three years into this game and some of the best players in the world could get eliminated in just two games from the most prestigious tournament there is (WCS KR).
Most people clearly aren't thinking about this rationally and are just going "Bo1 this is fucking stupid it's now COMPLETELY RANDOM who will make it through and everyone will just cheese and it's a coinflip."
Now your exaggerating. Obviously it won't be completely random and every game won't necessarily be a cheese. There will probably be more randomness and cheesing though.
Even if the games don't turn out to be coin flippy or cheesy I still think that it is very unforgiving to be possibly eliminated after just two loses. I don't want to see my favourite players eliminated because they had 2 games where they didn't play their best and I doubt anyone else does either.
Not to say this will make the entire RO32 crap. I am sure it will be great, I just think it would be better with a different format.
Not exaggerating at all. Some people have literally said that it's now completely random who'll make it through. What about last MLG? Not only was it lose 3 games and you're out, but you only played one person, so if you had a bad match up (Minigun vs Life?) you were just out right away. What about code A? If you lose two games then you're out, and if it's in the Ro48, then you have to go through the prelims, where again if you lose two games then you're out.
It's just the way some things are, and it's the way the OSL has always been. Nobody ever complained about it during Brood War, but since people are used to something different in Starcraft 2, they all freak out about it with absolutely no rationale beyond "It didn't work in 2011" and "The last OSL was bad".
You complain about people who exaggerate and then go on to say the bolded sentence yourself. Hypocrisy much? Especially since your only argument is "it's always been like this in BW", lol.
The rationale, as has been many times stated, is that a sequence of Bo1 makes the more skilled player somewhat more vulnerable to allins/cheese. Of course most of the time the more skilled player will make it through, but Bo1 greatly increases the chances for a cheeser to get through or a lesser player upsetting a championship candidate too easily. That wouldn't be too bad if it was just for some nostalgic Starleague, but this replaces basically the GSL S3, so of course we hold it to a higher standard than if it just was an OSL. You also have to consider that this acts as a qualifier for the next season of WCS, so their messup potentially affects the next season too. That's why a lot of us are upset at this and express their concerns...
Not only did I not complain about people who exaggerate, but that sentence wasn't an exaggeration...? What are you talking about?
You claim that a Bo1 instead of a Bo3 will greatly increase the chances for a cheeser/weaker player to get through. Where are your stats for this? From what I've seen, it'll maybe be a 10% difference. Incidentally, many people aren't even saying this; they simply angrily exclaim that it's bullshit, they hate OGN, it'll just be random who gets through, etc.
PS: responding to my argument that it's worked for 13 years with "lol" isn't particularly persuasive.
You don't need stats, it is basic arithmetic. If a player only has a 20% chance to win a game, then he has a 20% chance to win a b01 but only a 10.4% chance to win a b03. Even at 60/40, the weaker player only has a 35.2% chance to win a b03. A bo3 always gives an advantage to the player who is more likely to win.
Once again, obviously a Bo1 gives the weaker player a better chance to advance. I asked for proof that it GREATLY increases their chances.
a 80-20 split probably isn't too uncommon to have (e.g. i'd bet that bogus can probably beat shine 4/5 times) but doubling the chances to advance from 10% to 20% is pretty significant in my eyes. dno if you call that great or not though
Saying doubling is not very useful though : for the advantaged player, this is a 8/9th disadvantage, nothing to complain about, which number is more significant as a spectator ? A more interesting but a bit more complicated thing to compute would be something like the average number of let's say supplementary top8 player that would be eliminated in the round of 32 with bo1s instead of a bo3s, using Aligulac ratings... I'd venture it wouldn't be much higher than 1.
doubling the chances means we will see double the upsets. granted, if we normally have 1-2, this only means we have 3-4. but 3-4 is quite a lot of upsets for a RO32 imo
Most people clearly aren't thinking about this rationally and are just going "Bo1 this is fucking stupid it's now COMPLETELY RANDOM who will make it through and everyone will just cheese and it's a coinflip."
Now your exaggerating. Obviously it won't be completely random and every game won't necessarily be a cheese. There will probably be more randomness and cheesing though.
Even if the games don't turn out to be coin flippy or cheesy I still think that it is very unforgiving to be possibly eliminated after just two loses. I don't want to see my favourite players eliminated because they had 2 games where they didn't play their best and I doubt anyone else does either.
Not to say this will make the entire RO32 crap. I am sure it will be great, I just think it would be better with a different format.
Not exaggerating at all. Some people have literally said that it's now completely random who'll make it through. What about last MLG? Not only was it lose 3 games and you're out, but you only played one person, so if you had a bad match up (Minigun vs Life?) you were just out right away. What about code A? If you lose two games then you're out, and if it's in the Ro48, then you have to go through the prelims, where again if you lose two games then you're out.
It's just the way some things are, and it's the way the OSL has always been. Nobody ever complained about it during Brood War, but since people are used to something different in Starcraft 2, they all freak out about it with absolutely no rationale beyond "It didn't work in 2011" and "The last OSL was bad".
You complain about people who exaggerate and then go on to say the bolded sentence yourself. Hypocrisy much? Especially since your only argument is "it's always been like this in BW", lol.
The rationale, as has been many times stated, is that a sequence of Bo1 makes the more skilled player somewhat more vulnerable to allins/cheese. Of course most of the time the more skilled player will make it through, but Bo1 greatly increases the chances for a cheeser to get through or a lesser player upsetting a championship candidate too easily. That wouldn't be too bad if it was just for some nostalgic Starleague, but this replaces basically the GSL S3, so of course we hold it to a higher standard than if it just was an OSL. You also have to consider that this acts as a qualifier for the next season of WCS, so their messup potentially affects the next season too. That's why a lot of us are upset at this and express their concerns...
Not only did I not complain about people who exaggerate, but that sentence wasn't an exaggeration...? What are you talking about?
You claim that a Bo1 instead of a Bo3 will greatly increase the chances for a cheeser/weaker player to get through. Where are your stats for this? From what I've seen, it'll maybe be a 10% difference. Incidentally, many people aren't even saying this; they simply angrily exclaim that it's bullshit, they hate OGN, it'll just be random who gets through, etc.
PS: responding to my argument that it's worked for 13 years with "lol" isn't particularly persuasive.
You don't need stats, it is basic arithmetic. If a player only has a 20% chance to win a game, then he has a 20% chance to win a b01 but only a 10.4% chance to win a b03. Even at 60/40, the weaker player only has a 35.2% chance to win a b03. A bo3 always gives an advantage to the player who is more likely to win.
Once again, obviously a Bo1 gives the weaker player a better chance to advance. I asked for proof that it GREATLY increases their chances.
a 80-20 split probably isn't too uncommon to have (e.g. i'd bet that bogus can probably beat shine 4/5 times) but doubling the chances to advance from 10% to 20% is pretty significant in my eyes. dno if you call that great or not though
Saying doubling is not very useful though : for the advantaged player, this is a 8/9th disadvantage, nothing to complain about, which number is more significant as a spectator ? A more interesting but a bit more complicated thing to compute would be something like the average number of let's say supplementary top8 player that would be eliminated in the round of 32 with bo1s instead of a bo3s, using Aligulac ratings... I'd venture it wouldn't be much higher than 1.
doubling the chances means we will see double the upsets. granted, if we normally have 1-2, this only means we have 3-4. but 3-4 is quite a lot of upsets for a RO32 imo
What are the key differences between the KR, EU, and NA leagues?
Our goal has been to make the leagues as identical as possible in terms of structure, based on the GSL model. As a result of working with different league partners, there will be minor format differences that arise based on the legacy of a particular league.
though bo1 is a little silly for sc2 since it doesn't have as good balance; but mainly because its been the standard for a while and a consolodated global qualifying event should try to have most similar standards
balance wise bo1 mainly a problem in zvz in bw but you'd need like a bo5 to start hitting real balance on that, save for some jvz or the difference in players' confidence on tv. they're different games, what works for bw doesn't in sc2
edit- also, although bo1 isn't really bad (people are being dumb), the entire seed system works differently compared to bw. top 4 previous osl seeded right into ro16, and hypothetically (from tournament organization viewpoint) those are top 4 players in the world or close to it. The "better player" was automatically in the ro16.
EPT
I personally just find the line of argumentation of "we have always done it that way" or "it is tradition" never convincing at all (considering we are talking about completely different games).
