|
On December 12 2013 05:12 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 05:06 virpi wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 Zealously wrote:On December 12 2013 04:06 urboss wrote:On December 12 2013 04:04 DinoMight wrote:On December 12 2013 02:21 urboss wrote:
Just to put it into perspective:
Win percentages
Vitali Klitschko 95.7%
Novak Djokovic (2013) 90.2%
Taeja 68.28%
Innovation 67.4%
Dear 67.35%
Jaedong 61.8%
Soulkey 60.7%
Maru 58.0%
Most top level SC2 players have win percentages between 60 and 70 %.
If all have more or less the same win ratio then the results will be random when they play each other.
There is no one player that is standing out.
I guess Innovation came closest to that before the patch. Guys, very important. In other sports, namely Tennis, there is SEEDING. Meaning the best players play against the worst players in the first few rounds of a bracket. In StarCraft, there is no seeding. So we frequently end up with "groups of death" (Taeja, Innovation, sOs ForGG in one group at DH Winter, for example). If we had seeding, more of the best players would advance further in each tournament, giving them a higher chance of winning it all in the end. In Tennis, The Joker rarely has to play anyone good until the quarter finals at least. In StarCraft, it's not uncommon for top players at a tournament to end up in the group stage together and eliminate each other early, freeing up spots for other players to take. Interesting point! The next question would be: Why is there no seeding? How would you decide seeding when tournaments are considered equally important? Arbitrarly? By having a reliable world ranking. Like in every other individual sport. It's hard to create a reliable world ranking with a good point system when tournament attendance isn't as fixed as it is in other individual sports. Should Dreamhack Winter and IEM New York award an equal amount of points toward seeding? If not, how big should the difference be? How do we decide which tournaments are worth X points when sometimes there won't be as many good players as there were on another tournament in the same tournament circuit. Like, should DH: Valencia and DH: Bucharest award the same amount of points, even if one only has three elite players while the other has ten? Although WCS is a step on the way toward a more unified system, we're still far away from a solid way to determine the significance of X event vs Y event, and no ranking can be even nearly as reliable as the one you're asking for until that's in place. A major problem here is that it isn't always a guarantee that elite players will attend your tournament. Look at IEM Singapore, for example.
You could make the point allocation dynamic:
The number of points a tournament awards depends on the top-level players that are actually attending.
That means, if there are more top level players at Dreamhack, then Dreamhack will award more points than IEM and the other way around.
It is also helpful to take a closer look at the rating systems other sports are using:
ATP ranking system
Elo rating system
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On December 12 2013 05:24 urboss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 05:12 Zealously wrote:On December 12 2013 05:06 virpi wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 Zealously wrote:On December 12 2013 04:06 urboss wrote:On December 12 2013 04:04 DinoMight wrote:On December 12 2013 02:21 urboss wrote:
Just to put it into perspective:
Win percentages
Vitali Klitschko 95.7%
Novak Djokovic (2013) 90.2%
Taeja 68.28%
Innovation 67.4%
Dear 67.35%
Jaedong 61.8%
Soulkey 60.7%
Maru 58.0%
Most top level SC2 players have win percentages between 60 and 70 %.
If all have more or less the same win ratio then the results will be random when they play each other.
There is no one player that is standing out.
I guess Innovation came closest to that before the patch. Guys, very important. In other sports, namely Tennis, there is SEEDING. Meaning the best players play against the worst players in the first few rounds of a bracket. In StarCraft, there is no seeding. So we frequently end up with "groups of death" (Taeja, Innovation, sOs ForGG in one group at DH Winter, for example). If we had seeding, more of the best players would advance further in each tournament, giving them a higher chance of winning it all in the end. In Tennis, The Joker rarely has to play anyone good until the quarter finals at least. In StarCraft, it's not uncommon for top players at a tournament to end up in the group stage together and eliminate each other early, freeing up spots for other players to take. Interesting point! The next question would be: Why is there no seeding? How would you decide seeding when tournaments are considered equally important? Arbitrarly? By having a reliable world ranking. Like in every other individual sport. It's hard to create a reliable world ranking with a good point system when tournament attendance isn't as fixed as it is in other individual sports. Should Dreamhack Winter and IEM New York award an equal amount of points toward seeding? If not, how big should the difference be? How do we decide which tournaments are worth X points when sometimes there won't be as many good players as there were on another tournament in the same tournament circuit. Like, should DH: Valencia and DH: Bucharest award the same amount of points, even if one only has three elite players while the other has ten? Although WCS is a step on the way toward a more unified system, we're still far away from a solid way to determine the significance of X event vs Y event, and no ranking can be even nearly as reliable as the one you're asking for until that's in place. A major problem here is that it isn't always a guarantee that elite players will attend your tournament. Look at IEM Singapore, for example. You could make the point allocation dynamic: The number of points a tournament awards depends on the top-level players that are actually attending. That means, if there are more top level players at Dreamhack, then Dreamhack will award more points than IEM and the other way around. It is also helpful to take a closer look at the rating systems other sports are using: ATP ranking system
Elo rating system
Which naturally raises another annoying question: how do we define "top player"? If we were to define it as "top 16 WCS point earners", there are a few issues that come with that as well.
Of course, even if we were to adapt Aligulac-based seeding or whatever, it would reduce the the chances players have at making an underdog run and, however much the community complains about inconsistency and volatility, those are always appreciated. Would you be in favor of essentially killing of the chances of any player outside the top earners in order to create a more consistent format where players who win, win more? While it would doubtlessly bring more consistency, I think it sounds beyond horrible.
|
Nearly won a Liquibet Season in BW but couldn't get close in SC2 despite having some good predictions once in a while. Game design is responsible for the inconsistency. The more skilled player doesn't win nearly enough. Faulty game design and probably some balance issues are the reasons for this.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On December 12 2013 05:40 Arco wrote:
Nearly won a Liquibet Season in BW but couldn't get close in SC2 despite having some good predictions once in a while. Game design is responsible for the inconsistency. The more skilled player doesn't win nearly enough. Faulty game design and probably some balance issues are the reasons for this.
So you don't know SC2 as well as you knew BW, therefore game design and balance are to blame?
|
Heart of the Swarm has been out for less than a year compared to Brood War, which has been out for like 14 or 15 years and chess which has been around for like 1000 years. Let's at least wait a year or two until we start analyzing trends in tournament winners (besides racial imbalance, obviously).
|
i'd argue boxing is an extremely bad example, because opponents are chosen in a special kind of way. barely ever do "the top2 fighters" meet each other.
look at soccer for example. its unpredictability is similar to SC2. same with sc:bw.
ps: sad thing if you guys argued 9 pages about SC2 and its mechanics while everyone overlooked this truth. look at your sad bias 
|
On December 12 2013 05:27 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 05:24 urboss wrote:On December 12 2013 05:12 Zealously wrote:On December 12 2013 05:06 virpi wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 Zealously wrote:On December 12 2013 04:06 urboss wrote:On December 12 2013 04:04 DinoMight wrote:On December 12 2013 02:21 urboss wrote:
Just to put it into perspective:
Win percentages
Vitali Klitschko 95.7%
Novak Djokovic (2013) 90.2%
Taeja 68.28%
Innovation 67.4%
Dear 67.35%
Jaedong 61.8%
Soulkey 60.7%
Maru 58.0%
Most top level SC2 players have win percentages between 60 and 70 %.
If all have more or less the same win ratio then the results will be random when they play each other.
There is no one player that is standing out.
I guess Innovation came closest to that before the patch. Guys, very important. In other sports, namely Tennis, there is SEEDING. Meaning the best players play against the worst players in the first few rounds of a bracket. In StarCraft, there is no seeding. So we frequently end up with "groups of death" (Taeja, Innovation, sOs ForGG in one group at DH Winter, for example). If we had seeding, more of the best players would advance further in each tournament, giving them a higher chance of winning it all in the end. In Tennis, The Joker rarely has to play anyone good until the quarter finals at least. In StarCraft, it's not uncommon for top players at a tournament to end up in the group stage together and eliminate each other early, freeing up spots for other players to take. Interesting point! The next question would be: Why is there no seeding? How would you decide seeding when tournaments are considered equally important? Arbitrarly? By having a reliable world ranking. Like in every other individual sport. It's hard to create a reliable world ranking with a good point system when tournament attendance isn't as fixed as it is in other individual sports. Should Dreamhack Winter and IEM New York award an equal amount of points toward seeding? If not, how big should the difference be? How do we decide which tournaments are worth X points when sometimes there won't be as many good players as there were on another tournament in the same tournament circuit. Like, should DH: Valencia and DH: Bucharest award the same amount of points, even if one only has three elite players while the other has ten? Although WCS is a step on the way toward a more unified system, we're still far away from a solid way to determine the significance of X event vs Y event, and no ranking can be even nearly as reliable as the one you're asking for until that's in place. A major problem here is that it isn't always a guarantee that elite players will attend your tournament. Look at IEM Singapore, for example. You could make the point allocation dynamic: The number of points a tournament awards depends on the top-level players that are actually attending. That means, if there are more top level players at Dreamhack, then Dreamhack will award more points than IEM and the other way around. It is also helpful to take a closer look at the rating systems other sports are using: ATP ranking system
Elo rating system Which naturally raises another annoying question: how do we define "top player"? If we were to define it as "top 16 WCS point earners", there are a few issues that come with that as well. Of course, even if we were to adapt Aligulac-based seeding or whatever, it would reduce the the chances players have at making an underdog run and, however much the community complains about inconsistency and volatility, those are always appreciated. Would you be in favor of essentially killing of the chances of any player outside the top earners in order to create a more consistent format where players who win, win more? While it would doubtlessly bring more consistency, I think it sounds beyond horrible.
I could imagine the following system:
Players get seeded similar to the current GSL format, where previous Ro8 finalists are getting an advantage.
Except that instead of previous finalists we are seeding based on a worldwide Elo ranking system.
The tournament itself is a round-robin format where everyone plays everyone else.
This would definitely decrease the variance while outsiders would still have a reliable chance to make it.
|
id say just because of the general way the game plays and he fact that games can be incredibly different based on whether a player all ins or not, what style they play, the map, etc. Plus 1 mistake completely can cause you to loose. in tennis every game is pretty much the same and one mistake just means you lose a point.
|
On December 12 2013 05:40 Arco wrote:
Nearly won a Liquibet Season in BW but couldn't get close in SC2 despite having some good predictions once in a while. Game design is responsible for the inconsistency. The more skilled player doesn't win nearly enough. Faulty game design and probably some balance issues are the reasons for this.
#1 for SC2 liquibet: 170/237 71.7%
#1 for BW liquibet: 356/452 78.7%
That is relatively close, especially when you consider that (AFAIK) there havent been any meta shifts in BW in recent times.
|
On December 12 2013 05:40 Arco wrote:
Nearly won a Liquibet Season in BW but couldn't get close in SC2 despite having some good predictions once in a while. Game design is responsible for the inconsistency. The more skilled player doesn't win nearly enough. Faulty game design and probably some balance issues are the reasons for this.
SC2 is so inconsistent that, say, Asha finished top 50 for three liquidbet seasons straight even after he switched to Dota 2? 
|
For the Korean scene everyone plays on barcodes and Code A is not broadcast, so it's possible to not hear about a player for 3-4 months and then have them own everyone, and yes I'm referring to Rain in the Hot6 cup.
The foreign scene is pretty predictable, since most big names stream and everything is broadcast.
|
i'd like to see a Grand Slam style tournament. 2 weeks long with every match being at least BO5.
|
United States23455 Posts
On December 12 2013 05:40 Arco wrote:
Nearly won a Liquibet Season in BW but couldn't get close in SC2 despite having some good predictions once in a while. Game design is responsible for the inconsistency. The more skilled player doesn't win nearly enough. Faulty game design and probably some balance issues are the reasons for this.
I blame David Kim and Dustin Browder for my lack of liquibet wins as well.
|
Honestly, I've had little problems with predicting outcomes in tournaments. Add in potential Artosis Curse situations and it becomes absurdly easy sometimes..
|
Oh my god I rarely say this but this really is just an excuse to "remake the game," sort of thread. Thinking about it, have you ever even considered:
1. That the tournament structure of SC2 makes it hard for players to maintain consistent long term results;
2. That the kind of player capable of DOMINATING the scene really is THAT RARE?
Seriously, holy shit.
Another thing I would also agree with is yes, access to shittons of competitive VODs does make a progamer's builds less secure. Of course this should be offset by mechanical difficulty, but with some races or strategies this is not always the case...
- NVM, OP is just compiling what bunches of people are saying, lol. Still a bit sad, though -_-.
|
This nonsense now contains a wiki? Could be a blog?
|
I don't think sc2 results are that unpredictable and I don't think it's a fair assessment to say they are.
Actually in dota, top teams have the same winrate as top sc2 players (around 70%).
When flash was dominating, he had 70% winrate I think, perhaps 75% at best. When MVP dominated he has the same winrate. Except Flash had 3 tourneys a year to play in and never traveled, it's a lot easier to be stable in those conditions (that + being a genius).
|
On December 12 2013 07:04 MrCon wrote:
I don't think sc2 results are that unpredictable and I don't think it's a fair assessment to say they are.
Actually in dota, top teams have the same winrate as top sc2 players (around 70%).
When flash was dominating, he had 70% winrate I think, perhaps 75% at best. When MVP dominated he has the same winrate. Except Flash had 3 tourneys a year to play in and never traveled, it's a lot easier to be stable in those conditions (that + being a genius).
Flash actually has a retarded 72% (457-180) CAREER win rate so I don't even dare to guess his win rate when he was the most dominant but I get your point and agree with you. Flash is the exception.
|
On December 12 2013 05:27 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 05:24 urboss wrote:On December 12 2013 05:12 Zealously wrote:On December 12 2013 05:06 virpi wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 Zealously wrote:On December 12 2013 04:06 urboss wrote:On December 12 2013 04:04 DinoMight wrote:On December 12 2013 02:21 urboss wrote:
Just to put it into perspective:
Win percentages
Vitali Klitschko 95.7%
Novak Djokovic (2013) 90.2%
Taeja 68.28%
Innovation 67.4%
Dear 67.35%
Jaedong 61.8%
Soulkey 60.7%
Maru 58.0%
Most top level SC2 players have win percentages between 60 and 70 %.
If all have more or less the same win ratio then the results will be random when they play each other.
There is no one player that is standing out.
I guess Innovation came closest to that before the patch. Guys, very important. In other sports, namely Tennis, there is SEEDING. Meaning the best players play against the worst players in the first few rounds of a bracket. In StarCraft, there is no seeding. So we frequently end up with "groups of death" (Taeja, Innovation, sOs ForGG in one group at DH Winter, for example). If we had seeding, more of the best players would advance further in each tournament, giving them a higher chance of winning it all in the end. In Tennis, The Joker rarely has to play anyone good until the quarter finals at least. In StarCraft, it's not uncommon for top players at a tournament to end up in the group stage together and eliminate each other early, freeing up spots for other players to take. Interesting point! The next question would be: Why is there no seeding? How would you decide seeding when tournaments are considered equally important? Arbitrarly? By having a reliable world ranking. Like in every other individual sport. It's hard to create a reliable world ranking with a good point system when tournament attendance isn't as fixed as it is in other individual sports. Should Dreamhack Winter and IEM New York award an equal amount of points toward seeding? If not, how big should the difference be? How do we decide which tournaments are worth X points when sometimes there won't be as many good players as there were on another tournament in the same tournament circuit. Like, should DH: Valencia and DH: Bucharest award the same amount of points, even if one only has three elite players while the other has ten? Although WCS is a step on the way toward a more unified system, we're still far away from a solid way to determine the significance of X event vs Y event, and no ranking can be even nearly as reliable as the one you're asking for until that's in place. A major problem here is that it isn't always a guarantee that elite players will attend your tournament. Look at IEM Singapore, for example. You could make the point allocation dynamic: The number of points a tournament awards depends on the top-level players that are actually attending. That means, if there are more top level players at Dreamhack, then Dreamhack will award more points than IEM and the other way around. It is also helpful to take a closer look at the rating systems other sports are using: ATP ranking system
Elo rating system Which naturally raises another annoying question: how do we define "top player"? If we were to define it as "top 16 WCS point earners", there are a few issues that come with that as well. Of course, even if we were to adapt Aligulac-based seeding or whatever, it would reduce the the chances players have at making an underdog run and, however much the community complains about inconsistency and volatility, those are always appreciated. Would you be in favor of essentially killing of the chances of any player outside the top earners in order to create a more consistent format where players who win, win more? While it would doubtlessly bring more consistency, I think it sounds beyond horrible.
I'll one up you by adding what people list as majors and premier tournaments. Some things just need to be written in stone.
|
On December 12 2013 05:40 Arco wrote:
Nearly won a Liquibet Season in BW but couldn't get close in SC2 despite having some good predictions once in a while. Game design is responsible for the inconsistency. The more skilled player doesn't win nearly enough. Faulty game design and probably some balance issues are the reasons for this.
I've gotten top 25 liquibet in BW the past 2 years and I haven't watched BW in like 3 years hehehe... I do miss it though
Though I would say a lot of the inconsistency seasonally is just that the game is patched far more frequently and that will surely settle a few years into LOTV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
