|
On September 02 2014 22:57 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 21:50 gTank wrote:On September 02 2014 21:46 opisska wrote:
The monthly power rank really doesn't make any sense in the current SC2 scene. For every player it is basically about "were there any significant events in the area where I get to play". The fact that people view Flash's 3rd place as low is the ultimate testament to that. OK, great, so he won a tourney on the last weekend of the month and thus we are going to instantly forget that he has been a complete failure in individual tourneys until now? Or is it just because he used to be really good in a game that requires a significantly different skillset? You don't get it that it is a monthy power rank either, right? In this month, he was the best player. Maybe you shouldn't call people out on "not getting something" when you obviously fail in reading comprehension. I said that the monthly power rank does not make sense, not that this is not the right monthly power rank. The question of "who was the best player this month" is nonsensical, that is the problem. A month is just too short of a time with 3 WCS seasons a year. One month you will judge people on results from random tournaments, which depend mainly on who had enough sponsorship to go there, whereas the other month you have GSL finals ... Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 21:52 Zealously wrote:On September 02 2014 02:59 Zealously wrote:
The fact that this is the first Power Rank since December made me hesitant to just cut off at August 1 and exclusively count results from August. Since this ranking is the first in a while, I put slightly more emphasis on consistency and past results. That said, I would not make any major changes even if I didn't. Making the high position for a player who won one single tournament in his whole career even more absurd.
It isn't only about winning a tournament. You can (theoretically) be the best player in the wolrd with a 90% winrate overall and never win a single tournament. Would you say this player doesn't deserve to be number one regardless?
|
your Country52798 Posts
On September 02 2014 22:25 GumBa wrote:
INno at 9 is fair imo pretty good pr cant wait till next months
This isn't how fanboyism works Gumba, you're supposed to say that innovation is at least #1 geez.
Seriously though I agree. Innovation needs to prove his spot this month though.
|
On September 02 2014 23:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 22:57 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 21:50 gTank wrote:On September 02 2014 21:46 opisska wrote:
The monthly power rank really doesn't make any sense in the current SC2 scene. For every player it is basically about "were there any significant events in the area where I get to play". The fact that people view Flash's 3rd place as low is the ultimate testament to that. OK, great, so he won a tourney on the last weekend of the month and thus we are going to instantly forget that he has been a complete failure in individual tourneys until now? Or is it just because he used to be really good in a game that requires a significantly different skillset? You don't get it that it is a monthy power rank either, right? In this month, he was the best player. Maybe you shouldn't call people out on "not getting something" when you obviously fail in reading comprehension. I said that the monthly power rank does not make sense, not that this is not the right monthly power rank. The question of "who was the best player this month" is nonsensical, that is the problem. A month is just too short of a time with 3 WCS seasons a year. One month you will judge people on results from random tournaments, which depend mainly on who had enough sponsorship to go there, whereas the other month you have GSL finals ... On September 02 2014 21:52 Zealously wrote:On September 02 2014 02:59 Zealously wrote:
The fact that this is the first Power Rank since December made me hesitant to just cut off at August 1 and exclusively count results from August. Since this ranking is the first in a while, I put slightly more emphasis on consistency and past results. That said, I would not make any major changes even if I didn't. Making the high position for a player who won one single tournament in his whole career even more absurd. It isn't only about winning a tournament. You can (theoretically) be the best player in the wolrd with a 90% winrate overall and never win a single tournament. Would you say this player doesn't deserve to be number one regardless?
Sure I would. This game is played in tournaments. Winning them (or, in general, placing as high as possible) is the sole point of the competition. That's where you get money, that's where you get recognition. All the other metrics such as winrates, various "mathematically sophisticated" rankings and whatnot are just half made up by bored fans with nothing better to do and half excuses by people who are unhappy with actual tournament results - and, admittedly also slightly useful, but also often vastly misleading, as a tool to navigate our complex world with more than one tournament.
It is the same as with the arguments like "he looked so dominant in the games". That's not how SC2 works. This is not ice skating, you don't get points for style from a biased jury. You either win or lose and it is completely irrelevant how that happened (unless you cheated, of course). I hate the "everybody is a winner in some way" attitude. If you lose, you lose, there is no redemption - that's the beauty of true competition.
|
On September 02 2014 23:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 22:57 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 21:50 gTank wrote:On September 02 2014 21:46 opisska wrote:
The monthly power rank really doesn't make any sense in the current SC2 scene. For every player it is basically about "were there any significant events in the area where I get to play". The fact that people view Flash's 3rd place as low is the ultimate testament to that. OK, great, so he won a tourney on the last weekend of the month and thus we are going to instantly forget that he has been a complete failure in individual tourneys until now? Or is it just because he used to be really good in a game that requires a significantly different skillset? You don't get it that it is a monthy power rank either, right? In this month, he was the best player. Maybe you shouldn't call people out on "not getting something" when you obviously fail in reading comprehension. I said that the monthly power rank does not make sense, not that this is not the right monthly power rank. The question of "who was the best player this month" is nonsensical, that is the problem. A month is just too short of a time with 3 WCS seasons a year. One month you will judge people on results from random tournaments, which depend mainly on who had enough sponsorship to go there, whereas the other month you have GSL finals ... On September 02 2014 21:52 Zealously wrote:On September 02 2014 02:59 Zealously wrote:
The fact that this is the first Power Rank since December made me hesitant to just cut off at August 1 and exclusively count results from August. Since this ranking is the first in a while, I put slightly more emphasis on consistency and past results. That said, I would not make any major changes even if I didn't. Making the high position for a player who won one single tournament in his whole career even more absurd. It isn't only about winning a tournament. You can (theoretically) be the best player in the wolrd with a 90% winrate overall and never win a single tournament. Would you say this player doesn't deserve to be number one regardless?
I don't think so. It's like a basketball team winning 90% of its regular season games then losing in the second round of the playoffs. Sorry, the playoffs are far more important. Doesn't matter if u win 90% of your games if u don't win the games that matter most.
Tournaments determine the best players. Not statistics on Aligulac.
|
Rain might not even make it out of his Code S group, I still think he is overrated. I love my SKT players, and Rain is a very solid player, but you guys keep saying look at his recent results... well yeah lets look:
http://aligulac.com/players/7-Rain/results/
In the past two months, the three best players he probably beat are:
Life, Zest, and Cure
He lost to Cure 2-0 before, and beat Zest 2-1.
Well, who else did he beat? He didn't beat Flash, soO, sOs, herO, Soulkey, Maru, Parting, etc... none of these players in a bo3+.
In other words, he hasn't really beaten too many of the big hitters. Yes, he is winning a lot, but even against dull competition it is expected. He doesn't look invulnerable, and I really think he will finish at best 2nd in his group two days from now.
|
On September 02 2014 21:14 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 20:15 fenix404 wrote:
flash is 48-13, let's take that in... Here's my opinion on Flashs position. Let's say Snute wins the final game and defeats Flash 3-2. I feel that a lot of people would think that holding the #3 position would be too high and it would be very likely he'd end up lower. Can one map really hold that much influence on his overall strength? I think that would still be the case if he had lost to Taeja or Zest. Interestingly, if you make the assumption he loses one of those series his overall statistics still look mighty impressive. But because he didn't lift the trophy peoples perception of his strength changes. I think that's the issue that's at hand here. Rain/maru have been fairly out of the spotlight in August while Flash's latest accomplishment (and a significant one at that) was literally last weekend. I think that lack of attention is the greatest reason why people have a problem with Flash at 3 and not 1. In reality all three are extremely close at the moment -- to illustrate, maru and flash are 2-2 in the last 5 weeks (2-1 to flash and 1-0 to maru) -- and as such good arguments can be made for any permutation of the three. Lastly let's remember what the power rank is really about; it's about working out a list of players you hope to god aren't in your side of the bracket, the players that make their contemporaries hearts sink when they get paired together, the players who are most likely to win Bo5/Bo7's against anyone else in the world. Results play a significant role in working that stuff out, but that doesn't mean staying out of the spotlight and playing less games for a bit means you're any less dangerous.
PowerRank should be based on the last 6 months of performance, with more emphasis towards recent tournament success, but not entirely based on recent tournament success.
There is no doubt that during the Ro16 selections, the players would have picked Polt any day over sOs because Polt is easier than sOs (assuming Polt was part of the Ro16 selections). sOs has the highest win rate in Proleague for players that play a significant number of games (ie. he has the top win rate amongst the top 20 played players).
Zealously puts Polt at 8 but Polt has only played mediocre against mediocre competition in the last 6 months. If sOs was put in every tournament Polt was put in over the last 6 months, I think sOs would have had more success than Polt.
I would even say Solar is better than Polt. For the limited foreign tournaments Solar has played in the last several months, he has performed practically in each tournament he has traveled to. Can't say the same thing about Polt.
|
On September 02 2014 23:39 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 23:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 22:57 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 21:50 gTank wrote:On September 02 2014 21:46 opisska wrote:
The monthly power rank really doesn't make any sense in the current SC2 scene. For every player it is basically about "were there any significant events in the area where I get to play". The fact that people view Flash's 3rd place as low is the ultimate testament to that. OK, great, so he won a tourney on the last weekend of the month and thus we are going to instantly forget that he has been a complete failure in individual tourneys until now? Or is it just because he used to be really good in a game that requires a significantly different skillset? You don't get it that it is a monthy power rank either, right? In this month, he was the best player. Maybe you shouldn't call people out on "not getting something" when you obviously fail in reading comprehension. I said that the monthly power rank does not make sense, not that this is not the right monthly power rank. The question of "who was the best player this month" is nonsensical, that is the problem. A month is just too short of a time with 3 WCS seasons a year. One month you will judge people on results from random tournaments, which depend mainly on who had enough sponsorship to go there, whereas the other month you have GSL finals ... On September 02 2014 21:52 Zealously wrote:On September 02 2014 02:59 Zealously wrote:
The fact that this is the first Power Rank since December made me hesitant to just cut off at August 1 and exclusively count results from August. Since this ranking is the first in a while, I put slightly more emphasis on consistency and past results. That said, I would not make any major changes even if I didn't. Making the high position for a player who won one single tournament in his whole career even more absurd. It isn't only about winning a tournament. You can (theoretically) be the best player in the wolrd with a 90% winrate overall and never win a single tournament. Would you say this player doesn't deserve to be number one regardless? Sure I would. This game is played in tournaments. Winning them (or, in general, placing as high as possible) is the sole point of the competition. That's where you get money, that's where you get recognition. All the other metrics such as winrates, various "mathematically sophisticated" rankings and whatnot are just half made up by bored fans with nothing better to do and half excuses by people who are unhappy with actual tournament results - and, admittedly also slightly useful, but also often vastly misleading, as a tool to navigate our complex world with more than one tournament. It is the same as with the arguments like "he looked so dominant in the games". That's not how SC2 works. This is not ice skating, you don't get points for style from a biased jury. You either win or lose and it is completely irrelevant how that happened (unless you cheated, of course). I hate the "everybody is a winner in some way" attitude. If you lose, you lose, there is no redemption - that's the beauty of true competition.
Well yeah i don't agree with that at all. If some player would manage to get a ridicoulus win% but would never (or rarely, whatever) win a tournament he still would be the best imo.
Constistency > a lucky run.
Obviously this example is totally unrealistic, but i think it gets the point across.
|
Couldnt Agree more with Top 10 Ranking!! ..... i might have put FlaSh ahead of Maru but overall this ranking is LEGIT!
|
This is a good list for ppl like me to knwo who is on top shape at the moment.
|
On September 03 2014 00:31 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 23:39 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 23:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 22:57 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 21:50 gTank wrote:On September 02 2014 21:46 opisska wrote:
The monthly power rank really doesn't make any sense in the current SC2 scene. For every player it is basically about "were there any significant events in the area where I get to play". The fact that people view Flash's 3rd place as low is the ultimate testament to that. OK, great, so he won a tourney on the last weekend of the month and thus we are going to instantly forget that he has been a complete failure in individual tourneys until now? Or is it just because he used to be really good in a game that requires a significantly different skillset? You don't get it that it is a monthy power rank either, right? In this month, he was the best player. Maybe you shouldn't call people out on "not getting something" when you obviously fail in reading comprehension. I said that the monthly power rank does not make sense, not that this is not the right monthly power rank. The question of "who was the best player this month" is nonsensical, that is the problem. A month is just too short of a time with 3 WCS seasons a year. One month you will judge people on results from random tournaments, which depend mainly on who had enough sponsorship to go there, whereas the other month you have GSL finals ... On September 02 2014 21:52 Zealously wrote:On September 02 2014 02:59 Zealously wrote:
The fact that this is the first Power Rank since December made me hesitant to just cut off at August 1 and exclusively count results from August. Since this ranking is the first in a while, I put slightly more emphasis on consistency and past results. That said, I would not make any major changes even if I didn't. Making the high position for a player who won one single tournament in his whole career even more absurd. It isn't only about winning a tournament. You can (theoretically) be the best player in the wolrd with a 90% winrate overall and never win a single tournament. Would you say this player doesn't deserve to be number one regardless? Sure I would. This game is played in tournaments. Winning them (or, in general, placing as high as possible) is the sole point of the competition. That's where you get money, that's where you get recognition. All the other metrics such as winrates, various "mathematically sophisticated" rankings and whatnot are just half made up by bored fans with nothing better to do and half excuses by people who are unhappy with actual tournament results - and, admittedly also slightly useful, but also often vastly misleading, as a tool to navigate our complex world with more than one tournament. It is the same as with the arguments like "he looked so dominant in the games". That's not how SC2 works. This is not ice skating, you don't get points for style from a biased jury. You either win or lose and it is completely irrelevant how that happened (unless you cheated, of course). I hate the "everybody is a winner in some way" attitude. If you lose, you lose, there is no redemption - that's the beauty of true competition. Well yeah i don't agree with that at all. If some player would manage to get a ridicoulus win% but would never (or rarely, whatever) win a tournament he still would be the best imo. Constistency > a lucky run. Obviously this example is totally unrealistic, but i think it gets the point across.
Then why even have tournaments? Why have playoffs at all in any sport? Just for the fans?
|
|
|
On September 03 2014 00:38 viperattack999 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 00:31 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 23:39 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 23:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 22:57 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 21:50 gTank wrote:On September 02 2014 21:46 opisska wrote:
The monthly power rank really doesn't make any sense in the current SC2 scene. For every player it is basically about "were there any significant events in the area where I get to play". The fact that people view Flash's 3rd place as low is the ultimate testament to that. OK, great, so he won a tourney on the last weekend of the month and thus we are going to instantly forget that he has been a complete failure in individual tourneys until now? Or is it just because he used to be really good in a game that requires a significantly different skillset? You don't get it that it is a monthy power rank either, right? In this month, he was the best player. Maybe you shouldn't call people out on "not getting something" when you obviously fail in reading comprehension. I said that the monthly power rank does not make sense, not that this is not the right monthly power rank. The question of "who was the best player this month" is nonsensical, that is the problem. A month is just too short of a time with 3 WCS seasons a year. One month you will judge people on results from random tournaments, which depend mainly on who had enough sponsorship to go there, whereas the other month you have GSL finals ... On September 02 2014 21:52 Zealously wrote:On September 02 2014 02:59 Zealously wrote:
The fact that this is the first Power Rank since December made me hesitant to just cut off at August 1 and exclusively count results from August. Since this ranking is the first in a while, I put slightly more emphasis on consistency and past results. That said, I would not make any major changes even if I didn't. Making the high position for a player who won one single tournament in his whole career even more absurd. It isn't only about winning a tournament. You can (theoretically) be the best player in the wolrd with a 90% winrate overall and never win a single tournament. Would you say this player doesn't deserve to be number one regardless? Sure I would. This game is played in tournaments. Winning them (or, in general, placing as high as possible) is the sole point of the competition. That's where you get money, that's where you get recognition. All the other metrics such as winrates, various "mathematically sophisticated" rankings and whatnot are just half made up by bored fans with nothing better to do and half excuses by people who are unhappy with actual tournament results - and, admittedly also slightly useful, but also often vastly misleading, as a tool to navigate our complex world with more than one tournament. It is the same as with the arguments like "he looked so dominant in the games". That's not how SC2 works. This is not ice skating, you don't get points for style from a biased jury. You either win or lose and it is completely irrelevant how that happened (unless you cheated, of course). I hate the "everybody is a winner in some way" attitude. If you lose, you lose, there is no redemption - that's the beauty of true competition. Well yeah i don't agree with that at all. If some player would manage to get a ridicoulus win% but would never (or rarely, whatever) win a tournament he still would be the best imo. Constistency > a lucky run. Obviously this example is totally unrealistic, but i think it gets the point across. Then why even have tournaments? Why have playoffs at all in any sport? Just for the fans?
I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. Even in my example you obviously need tournaments, otherwise there is no competition and no stats 
And yeah i never understood having playoffs with a league format, but whatever americans...
|
On September 03 2014 01:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 00:38 viperattack999 wrote:On September 03 2014 00:31 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 23:39 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 23:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 22:57 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 21:50 gTank wrote:On September 02 2014 21:46 opisska wrote:
The monthly power rank really doesn't make any sense in the current SC2 scene. For every player it is basically about "were there any significant events in the area where I get to play". The fact that people view Flash's 3rd place as low is the ultimate testament to that. OK, great, so he won a tourney on the last weekend of the month and thus we are going to instantly forget that he has been a complete failure in individual tourneys until now? Or is it just because he used to be really good in a game that requires a significantly different skillset? You don't get it that it is a monthy power rank either, right? In this month, he was the best player. Maybe you shouldn't call people out on "not getting something" when you obviously fail in reading comprehension. I said that the monthly power rank does not make sense, not that this is not the right monthly power rank. The question of "who was the best player this month" is nonsensical, that is the problem. A month is just too short of a time with 3 WCS seasons a year. One month you will judge people on results from random tournaments, which depend mainly on who had enough sponsorship to go there, whereas the other month you have GSL finals ... On September 02 2014 21:52 Zealously wrote:On September 02 2014 02:59 Zealously wrote:
The fact that this is the first Power Rank since December made me hesitant to just cut off at August 1 and exclusively count results from August. Since this ranking is the first in a while, I put slightly more emphasis on consistency and past results. That said, I would not make any major changes even if I didn't. Making the high position for a player who won one single tournament in his whole career even more absurd. It isn't only about winning a tournament. You can (theoretically) be the best player in the wolrd with a 90% winrate overall and never win a single tournament. Would you say this player doesn't deserve to be number one regardless? Sure I would. This game is played in tournaments. Winning them (or, in general, placing as high as possible) is the sole point of the competition. That's where you get money, that's where you get recognition. All the other metrics such as winrates, various "mathematically sophisticated" rankings and whatnot are just half made up by bored fans with nothing better to do and half excuses by people who are unhappy with actual tournament results - and, admittedly also slightly useful, but also often vastly misleading, as a tool to navigate our complex world with more than one tournament. It is the same as with the arguments like "he looked so dominant in the games". That's not how SC2 works. This is not ice skating, you don't get points for style from a biased jury. You either win or lose and it is completely irrelevant how that happened (unless you cheated, of course). I hate the "everybody is a winner in some way" attitude. If you lose, you lose, there is no redemption - that's the beauty of true competition. Well yeah i don't agree with that at all. If some player would manage to get a ridicoulus win% but would never (or rarely, whatever) win a tournament he still would be the best imo. Constistency > a lucky run. Obviously this example is totally unrealistic, but i think it gets the point across. Then why even have tournaments? Why have playoffs at all in any sport? Just for the fans? I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. Even in my example you obviously need tournaments, otherwise there is no competition and no stats And yeah i never understood having playoffs with a league format, but whatever americans...
I've heard this view before. Why even have playoffs. I understand your argument now.
Mostly if a league format was used with no playoff, say in basketball for example there often times is no resolution of who exactly is the best team/player. If the top 2 placing teams only play twice in a season, split the games, but one team ended the season with an overall record slightly better, are they really the better team? Can you say for sure? Actually there's no way to determine. Maybe the first placing team was from a weaker division, who the hell knows. So tournaments were invented. Lets have the best teams play off to determine the best team and remove doubt. Tournaments decide.
Thats my problem with the power rank. Its ambiguous. Based on statistics Flash is the worlds best player so says Aligulac. But who says there methodology is correct? From Aligulac's point of view Rain going 7-0 in seven virtually meaningless best of ones is better than Flash going 4-1 versus Zest in a championship final.
And Flashes recent play is for only a handful of weeks, what time length must be taken into consideration for determining the best players?
The only way to settle matters is have them play off in a best-of. It settles everything which is why tournaments exist. We don't have to guess who the best player is, we just watched it.
|
In a sport similar to Starcraft in structure, tennis, you don't ever have to win tournaments to be the best in the world/have the highest ratings. Being in Ro4s, and finals all the time is often enough, if you are consistent enough that you are in there a lot. Historically, it is often the case that all 4 grand slams are won by different people.
SO basically what I wanted to say is that if a guy gets Ro4 GSL all three tournaments, consistently places high in online qualifiers and has amazing winrate in Proleague, he probably is better then a guy who randomly won Red Bull Battlegrounds (of course, then the question is, if the guy that won Red Bull doesn't have similar record in those other leageus etc).
That would also be my case for Flash being #1 right now - Rain and Flash have similar stats, similar opponents, they are practically similar in everything but one thing - Flash competed in IEM (Rain didn't) and Flash won IEM. Therefore, I think currently he is SLIGHTLY better off then Rain.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On September 03 2014 01:25 viperattack999 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 01:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 03 2014 00:38 viperattack999 wrote:On September 03 2014 00:31 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 23:39 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 23:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 22:57 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 21:50 gTank wrote:On September 02 2014 21:46 opisska wrote:
The monthly power rank really doesn't make any sense in the current SC2 scene. For every player it is basically about "were there any significant events in the area where I get to play". The fact that people view Flash's 3rd place as low is the ultimate testament to that. OK, great, so he won a tourney on the last weekend of the month and thus we are going to instantly forget that he has been a complete failure in individual tourneys until now? Or is it just because he used to be really good in a game that requires a significantly different skillset? You don't get it that it is a monthy power rank either, right? In this month, he was the best player. Maybe you shouldn't call people out on "not getting something" when you obviously fail in reading comprehension. I said that the monthly power rank does not make sense, not that this is not the right monthly power rank. The question of "who was the best player this month" is nonsensical, that is the problem. A month is just too short of a time with 3 WCS seasons a year. One month you will judge people on results from random tournaments, which depend mainly on who had enough sponsorship to go there, whereas the other month you have GSL finals ... On September 02 2014 21:52 Zealously wrote:On September 02 2014 02:59 Zealously wrote:
The fact that this is the first Power Rank since December made me hesitant to just cut off at August 1 and exclusively count results from August. Since this ranking is the first in a while, I put slightly more emphasis on consistency and past results. That said, I would not make any major changes even if I didn't. Making the high position for a player who won one single tournament in his whole career even more absurd. It isn't only about winning a tournament. You can (theoretically) be the best player in the wolrd with a 90% winrate overall and never win a single tournament. Would you say this player doesn't deserve to be number one regardless? Sure I would. This game is played in tournaments. Winning them (or, in general, placing as high as possible) is the sole point of the competition. That's where you get money, that's where you get recognition. All the other metrics such as winrates, various "mathematically sophisticated" rankings and whatnot are just half made up by bored fans with nothing better to do and half excuses by people who are unhappy with actual tournament results - and, admittedly also slightly useful, but also often vastly misleading, as a tool to navigate our complex world with more than one tournament. It is the same as with the arguments like "he looked so dominant in the games". That's not how SC2 works. This is not ice skating, you don't get points for style from a biased jury. You either win or lose and it is completely irrelevant how that happened (unless you cheated, of course). I hate the "everybody is a winner in some way" attitude. If you lose, you lose, there is no redemption - that's the beauty of true competition. Well yeah i don't agree with that at all. If some player would manage to get a ridicoulus win% but would never (or rarely, whatever) win a tournament he still would be the best imo. Constistency > a lucky run. Obviously this example is totally unrealistic, but i think it gets the point across. Then why even have tournaments? Why have playoffs at all in any sport? Just for the fans? I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. Even in my example you obviously need tournaments, otherwise there is no competition and no stats And yeah i never understood having playoffs with a league format, but whatever americans... I've heard this view before. Why even have playoffs. I understand your argument now. Mostly if a league format was used with no playoff, say in basketball for example there often times is no resolution of who exactly is the best team/player. If the top 2 placing teams only play twice in a season, split the games, but one team ended the season with an overall record slightly better, are they really the better team? Can you say for sure? Actually there's no way to determine. Maybe the first placing team was from a weaker division, who the hell knows. So tournaments were invented. Lets have the best teams play off to determine the best team and remove doubt. Tournaments decide. Thats my problem with the power rank. Its ambiguous. Based on statistics Flash is the worlds best player so says Aligulac. But who says there methodology is correct? From Aligulac's point of view Rain going 7-0 in seven virtually meaningless best of ones is better than Flash going 4-1 versus Zest in a championship final. And Flashes recent play is for only a handful of weeks, what time length must be taken into consideration for determining the best players? The only way to settle matters is have them play off in a best-of. It settles everything which is why tournaments exist. We don't have to guess who the best player is, we just watched it.
The best way to determine "who is better" is to have a BO5 or BO7 series where both players are given optimal training conditions and plenty of time to prepare. Obviously this doesn't always happen which is why there's inconsistency.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On September 03 2014 01:25 viperattack999 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 01:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 03 2014 00:38 viperattack999 wrote:On September 03 2014 00:31 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 23:39 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 23:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 22:57 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 21:50 gTank wrote:On September 02 2014 21:46 opisska wrote:
The monthly power rank really doesn't make any sense in the current SC2 scene. For every player it is basically about "were there any significant events in the area where I get to play". The fact that people view Flash's 3rd place as low is the ultimate testament to that. OK, great, so he won a tourney on the last weekend of the month and thus we are going to instantly forget that he has been a complete failure in individual tourneys until now? Or is it just because he used to be really good in a game that requires a significantly different skillset? You don't get it that it is a monthy power rank either, right? In this month, he was the best player. Maybe you shouldn't call people out on "not getting something" when you obviously fail in reading comprehension. I said that the monthly power rank does not make sense, not that this is not the right monthly power rank. The question of "who was the best player this month" is nonsensical, that is the problem. A month is just too short of a time with 3 WCS seasons a year. One month you will judge people on results from random tournaments, which depend mainly on who had enough sponsorship to go there, whereas the other month you have GSL finals ... On September 02 2014 21:52 Zealously wrote:On September 02 2014 02:59 Zealously wrote:
The fact that this is the first Power Rank since December made me hesitant to just cut off at August 1 and exclusively count results from August. Since this ranking is the first in a while, I put slightly more emphasis on consistency and past results. That said, I would not make any major changes even if I didn't. Making the high position for a player who won one single tournament in his whole career even more absurd. It isn't only about winning a tournament. You can (theoretically) be the best player in the wolrd with a 90% winrate overall and never win a single tournament. Would you say this player doesn't deserve to be number one regardless? Sure I would. This game is played in tournaments. Winning them (or, in general, placing as high as possible) is the sole point of the competition. That's where you get money, that's where you get recognition. All the other metrics such as winrates, various "mathematically sophisticated" rankings and whatnot are just half made up by bored fans with nothing better to do and half excuses by people who are unhappy with actual tournament results - and, admittedly also slightly useful, but also often vastly misleading, as a tool to navigate our complex world with more than one tournament. It is the same as with the arguments like "he looked so dominant in the games". That's not how SC2 works. This is not ice skating, you don't get points for style from a biased jury. You either win or lose and it is completely irrelevant how that happened (unless you cheated, of course). I hate the "everybody is a winner in some way" attitude. If you lose, you lose, there is no redemption - that's the beauty of true competition. Well yeah i don't agree with that at all. If some player would manage to get a ridicoulus win% but would never (or rarely, whatever) win a tournament he still would be the best imo. Constistency > a lucky run. Obviously this example is totally unrealistic, but i think it gets the point across. Then why even have tournaments? Why have playoffs at all in any sport? Just for the fans? I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. Even in my example you obviously need tournaments, otherwise there is no competition and no stats And yeah i never understood having playoffs with a league format, but whatever americans... The only way to settle matters is have them play off in a best-of. It settles everything which is why tournaments exist. We don't have to guess who the best player is, we just watched it.
That only determines which of the players is best in head-to-head. You can lose the head-to-head and still be the better player in the two remaining match-ups (and perhaps even against other players in the same match-up). Head-to-head and overall skill are two different things in a game like Starcraft and need to be kept apart.
|
On September 03 2014 02:45 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 01:25 viperattack999 wrote:On September 03 2014 01:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 03 2014 00:38 viperattack999 wrote:On September 03 2014 00:31 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 23:39 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 23:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 22:57 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 21:50 gTank wrote:On September 02 2014 21:46 opisska wrote:
The monthly power rank really doesn't make any sense in the current SC2 scene. For every player it is basically about "were there any significant events in the area where I get to play". The fact that people view Flash's 3rd place as low is the ultimate testament to that. OK, great, so he won a tourney on the last weekend of the month and thus we are going to instantly forget that he has been a complete failure in individual tourneys until now? Or is it just because he used to be really good in a game that requires a significantly different skillset? You don't get it that it is a monthy power rank either, right? In this month, he was the best player. Maybe you shouldn't call people out on "not getting something" when you obviously fail in reading comprehension. I said that the monthly power rank does not make sense, not that this is not the right monthly power rank. The question of "who was the best player this month" is nonsensical, that is the problem. A month is just too short of a time with 3 WCS seasons a year. One month you will judge people on results from random tournaments, which depend mainly on who had enough sponsorship to go there, whereas the other month you have GSL finals ... On September 02 2014 21:52 Zealously wrote:On September 02 2014 02:59 Zealously wrote:
The fact that this is the first Power Rank since December made me hesitant to just cut off at August 1 and exclusively count results from August. Since this ranking is the first in a while, I put slightly more emphasis on consistency and past results. That said, I would not make any major changes even if I didn't. Making the high position for a player who won one single tournament in his whole career even more absurd. It isn't only about winning a tournament. You can (theoretically) be the best player in the wolrd with a 90% winrate overall and never win a single tournament. Would you say this player doesn't deserve to be number one regardless? Sure I would. This game is played in tournaments. Winning them (or, in general, placing as high as possible) is the sole point of the competition. That's where you get money, that's where you get recognition. All the other metrics such as winrates, various "mathematically sophisticated" rankings and whatnot are just half made up by bored fans with nothing better to do and half excuses by people who are unhappy with actual tournament results - and, admittedly also slightly useful, but also often vastly misleading, as a tool to navigate our complex world with more than one tournament. It is the same as with the arguments like "he looked so dominant in the games". That's not how SC2 works. This is not ice skating, you don't get points for style from a biased jury. You either win or lose and it is completely irrelevant how that happened (unless you cheated, of course). I hate the "everybody is a winner in some way" attitude. If you lose, you lose, there is no redemption - that's the beauty of true competition. Well yeah i don't agree with that at all. If some player would manage to get a ridicoulus win% but would never (or rarely, whatever) win a tournament he still would be the best imo. Constistency > a lucky run. Obviously this example is totally unrealistic, but i think it gets the point across. Then why even have tournaments? Why have playoffs at all in any sport? Just for the fans? I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. Even in my example you obviously need tournaments, otherwise there is no competition and no stats And yeah i never understood having playoffs with a league format, but whatever americans... The only way to settle matters is have them play off in a best-of. It settles everything which is why tournaments exist. We don't have to guess who the best player is, we just watched it. That only determines which of the players is best in head-to-head. You can lose the head-to-head and still be the better player in the two remaining match-ups (and perhaps even against other players in the same match-up). Head-to-head and overall skill are two different things in a game like Starcraft and need to be kept apart.
So if Flash and Rain playoff in a best of, the result is not indicative of who the best player is?
I must be on mars...
|
On September 03 2014 02:54 viperattack999 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 02:45 Zealously wrote:On September 03 2014 01:25 viperattack999 wrote:On September 03 2014 01:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 03 2014 00:38 viperattack999 wrote:On September 03 2014 00:31 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 23:39 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 23:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 22:57 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 21:50 gTank wrote:
[quote]
You don't get it that it is a monthy power rank either, right? In this month, he was the best player. Maybe you shouldn't call people out on "not getting something" when you obviously fail in reading comprehension. I said that the monthly power rank does not make sense, not that this is not the right monthly power rank. The question of "who was the best player this month" is nonsensical, that is the problem. A month is just too short of a time with 3 WCS seasons a year. One month you will judge people on results from random tournaments, which depend mainly on who had enough sponsorship to go there, whereas the other month you have GSL finals ... On September 02 2014 21:52 Zealously wrote:
[quote]
Making the high position for a player who won one single tournament in his whole career even more absurd. It isn't only about winning a tournament. You can (theoretically) be the best player in the wolrd with a 90% winrate overall and never win a single tournament. Would you say this player doesn't deserve to be number one regardless? Sure I would. This game is played in tournaments. Winning them (or, in general, placing as high as possible) is the sole point of the competition. That's where you get money, that's where you get recognition. All the other metrics such as winrates, various "mathematically sophisticated" rankings and whatnot are just half made up by bored fans with nothing better to do and half excuses by people who are unhappy with actual tournament results - and, admittedly also slightly useful, but also often vastly misleading, as a tool to navigate our complex world with more than one tournament. It is the same as with the arguments like "he looked so dominant in the games". That's not how SC2 works. This is not ice skating, you don't get points for style from a biased jury. You either win or lose and it is completely irrelevant how that happened (unless you cheated, of course). I hate the "everybody is a winner in some way" attitude. If you lose, you lose, there is no redemption - that's the beauty of true competition. Well yeah i don't agree with that at all. If some player would manage to get a ridicoulus win% but would never (or rarely, whatever) win a tournament he still would be the best imo. Constistency > a lucky run. Obviously this example is totally unrealistic, but i think it gets the point across. Then why even have tournaments? Why have playoffs at all in any sport? Just for the fans? I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. Even in my example you obviously need tournaments, otherwise there is no competition and no stats And yeah i never understood having playoffs with a league format, but whatever americans... The only way to settle matters is have them play off in a best-of. It settles everything which is why tournaments exist. We don't have to guess who the best player is, we just watched it. That only determines which of the players is best in head-to-head. You can lose the head-to-head and still be the better player in the two remaining match-ups (and perhaps even against other players in the same match-up). Head-to-head and overall skill are two different things in a game like Starcraft and need to be kept apart. So if Flash and Rain playoff in a best of, the result is not indicative of who the best player is? I must be on mars...
No it's not lol. Imagine that Flash plays against Impact in some online qualifier and Impact beats him 3-1. Would you really say Impact is better then Flash? (And I am only bringing out Impact because I am just watching StarHangshow and they talk about him there).
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On September 03 2014 02:54 viperattack999 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 02:45 Zealously wrote:On September 03 2014 01:25 viperattack999 wrote:On September 03 2014 01:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 03 2014 00:38 viperattack999 wrote:On September 03 2014 00:31 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 23:39 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 23:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 22:57 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 21:50 gTank wrote:
[quote]
You don't get it that it is a monthy power rank either, right? In this month, he was the best player. Maybe you shouldn't call people out on "not getting something" when you obviously fail in reading comprehension. I said that the monthly power rank does not make sense, not that this is not the right monthly power rank. The question of "who was the best player this month" is nonsensical, that is the problem. A month is just too short of a time with 3 WCS seasons a year. One month you will judge people on results from random tournaments, which depend mainly on who had enough sponsorship to go there, whereas the other month you have GSL finals ... On September 02 2014 21:52 Zealously wrote:
[quote]
Making the high position for a player who won one single tournament in his whole career even more absurd. It isn't only about winning a tournament. You can (theoretically) be the best player in the wolrd with a 90% winrate overall and never win a single tournament. Would you say this player doesn't deserve to be number one regardless? Sure I would. This game is played in tournaments. Winning them (or, in general, placing as high as possible) is the sole point of the competition. That's where you get money, that's where you get recognition. All the other metrics such as winrates, various "mathematically sophisticated" rankings and whatnot are just half made up by bored fans with nothing better to do and half excuses by people who are unhappy with actual tournament results - and, admittedly also slightly useful, but also often vastly misleading, as a tool to navigate our complex world with more than one tournament. It is the same as with the arguments like "he looked so dominant in the games". That's not how SC2 works. This is not ice skating, you don't get points for style from a biased jury. You either win or lose and it is completely irrelevant how that happened (unless you cheated, of course). I hate the "everybody is a winner in some way" attitude. If you lose, you lose, there is no redemption - that's the beauty of true competition. Well yeah i don't agree with that at all. If some player would manage to get a ridicoulus win% but would never (or rarely, whatever) win a tournament he still would be the best imo. Constistency > a lucky run. Obviously this example is totally unrealistic, but i think it gets the point across. Then why even have tournaments? Why have playoffs at all in any sport? Just for the fans? I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. Even in my example you obviously need tournaments, otherwise there is no competition and no stats And yeah i never understood having playoffs with a league format, but whatever americans... The only way to settle matters is have them play off in a best-of. It settles everything which is why tournaments exist. We don't have to guess who the best player is, we just watched it. That only determines which of the players is best in head-to-head. You can lose the head-to-head and still be the better player in the two remaining match-ups (and perhaps even against other players in the same match-up). Head-to-head and overall skill are two different things in a game like Starcraft and need to be kept apart. So if Flash and Rain playoff in a best of, the result is not indicative of who the best player is? I must be on mars...
Flash beats Rain, loses to Solar, Bbyong, and sOs.
Rain loses to Flash, beats Solar, Bbyong and sOs.
Who is the best player?
|
On September 03 2014 03:13 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 02:54 viperattack999 wrote:On September 03 2014 02:45 Zealously wrote:On September 03 2014 01:25 viperattack999 wrote:On September 03 2014 01:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 03 2014 00:38 viperattack999 wrote:On September 03 2014 00:31 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 23:39 opisska wrote:On September 02 2014 23:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 02 2014 22:57 opisska wrote:
[quote]
Maybe you shouldn't call people out on "not getting something" when you obviously fail in reading comprehension. I said that the monthly power rank does not make sense, not that this is not the right monthly power rank. The question of "who was the best player this month" is nonsensical, that is the problem. A month is just too short of a time with 3 WCS seasons a year. One month you will judge people on results from random tournaments, which depend mainly on who had enough sponsorship to go there, whereas the other month you have GSL finals ...
[quote]
Making the high position for a player who won one single tournament in his whole career even more absurd. It isn't only about winning a tournament. You can (theoretically) be the best player in the wolrd with a 90% winrate overall and never win a single tournament. Would you say this player doesn't deserve to be number one regardless? Sure I would. This game is played in tournaments. Winning them (or, in general, placing as high as possible) is the sole point of the competition. That's where you get money, that's where you get recognition. All the other metrics such as winrates, various "mathematically sophisticated" rankings and whatnot are just half made up by bored fans with nothing better to do and half excuses by people who are unhappy with actual tournament results - and, admittedly also slightly useful, but also often vastly misleading, as a tool to navigate our complex world with more than one tournament. It is the same as with the arguments like "he looked so dominant in the games". That's not how SC2 works. This is not ice skating, you don't get points for style from a biased jury. You either win or lose and it is completely irrelevant how that happened (unless you cheated, of course). I hate the "everybody is a winner in some way" attitude. If you lose, you lose, there is no redemption - that's the beauty of true competition. Well yeah i don't agree with that at all. If some player would manage to get a ridicoulus win% but would never (or rarely, whatever) win a tournament he still would be the best imo. Constistency > a lucky run. Obviously this example is totally unrealistic, but i think it gets the point across. Then why even have tournaments? Why have playoffs at all in any sport? Just for the fans? I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. Even in my example you obviously need tournaments, otherwise there is no competition and no stats And yeah i never understood having playoffs with a league format, but whatever americans... The only way to settle matters is have them play off in a best-of. It settles everything which is why tournaments exist. We don't have to guess who the best player is, we just watched it. That only determines which of the players is best in head-to-head. You can lose the head-to-head and still be the better player in the two remaining match-ups (and perhaps even against other players in the same match-up). Head-to-head and overall skill are two different things in a game like Starcraft and need to be kept apart. So if Flash and Rain playoff in a best of, the result is not indicative of who the best player is? I must be on mars... Flash beats Rain, loses to Solar, Bbyong, and sOs. Rain loses to Flash, beats Solar, Bbyong and sOs. Who is the best player?
Whoever won the damn tournament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
