|
United States33699 Posts
On February 19 2019 20:11 Rodya wrote:
Aligulac and WCS points are both bad metrics. You might disagree, but it is not an objective matter like you think it is.
They're objective metrics in that they consistently apply a set of rules that don't involve human judgment. Now, those rules have clear flaws and imperfections, but saying they're not 'objective' is not the correct argument against them.
|
France13018 Posts
On February 20 2019 00:52 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2019 20:11 Rodya wrote:
Aligulac and WCS points are both bad metrics. You might disagree, but it is not an objective matter like you think it is. They're objective metrics in that they consistently apply a set of rules that don't involve human judgment. Now, those rules have clear flaws and imperfections, but saying they're not 'objective' is not the correct argument against them.
The word he is looking for is probably absolute instead of objective.
Anyways, group A being such a group of death will make the tournament interesting from the get go!
Hopefully Maru and Serral meet again in WESG!
I hope to see Dns, PtitDrogo and Stephano qualify as well
|
PSISTORM.Silky forfeited his spot.
However, maybe one person can replace him because the message is much earlier than the matches start. (Chinglish)
puCK? A Chinese player?
We don't know now.
|
On February 20 2019 01:14 thickertom wrote:
PSISTORM.Silky forfeited his spot.
However, maybe one person can replace him because the message is much earlier than the matches start. (Chinglish)
puCK? A Chinese player?
We don't know now.
Future would be the obvious choice since he would've advanced to the finals of the US-qualifier if he hadn't lost to Silky.
|
On February 20 2019 00:52 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2019 20:11 Rodya wrote:
Aligulac and WCS points are both bad metrics. You might disagree, but it is not an objective matter like you think it is. They're objective metrics in that they consistently apply a set of rules that don't involve human judgment. Now, those rules have clear flaws and imperfections, but saying they're not 'objective' is not the correct argument against them.
I didn't say that the metrics are different depending on who is observing/measuring them. You're right that they are objective in that sense.
But what I said was that the issue at hand is not objective. Using Aligulac and WCS points does not settle things - it is a matter of human judgement to say that they are reasonable metrics to use. And all the worse that the judgement is highly contestable.
|
On February 19 2019 21:40 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2019 20:11 Rodya wrote:
Aligulac and WCS points are both bad metrics. You might disagree, but it is not an objective matter like you think it is. Well it's still the best we have, unless we go full subjective, it's better to have a metric that can favor foreigner or Koreans a bit than to decide we are the god of Starcraft and that actually Stats losing in the round of 32 dosen't count or things like that.
Don't worry about the Rodya guy, he's the friendly little troll of TL 
|
Lol, Jesus that Group A is insane.
|
On February 20 2019 04:04 Tommy131313 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2019 21:40 Nakajin wrote:On February 19 2019 20:11 Rodya wrote:
Aligulac and WCS points are both bad metrics. You might disagree, but it is not an objective matter like you think it is. Well it's still the best we have, unless we go full subjective, it's better to have a metric that can favor foreigner or Koreans a bit than to decide we are the god of Starcraft and that actually Stats losing in the round of 32 dosen't count or things like that. Don't worry about the Rodya guy, he's the friendly little troll of TL
At least he gives some cause for discussion :D
@Rodya
You'll have either no ranking or a ranking based on criteria chosen by human judgement. I prefer the idea to opt for the most reasonable and most widely accepted ranking there is (which would be aligulac). But as I said: in addition put players in skill groups and seed them randomly into the groups to make their exact placement in the ranking less impactful.
|
wesg has been traditionally drawing quite wild groups, this been going in other games too such was 1.6 cs etc. long time
so it's kinda different type of a tournament than others in terms of pre-seedings. the point is i guess that everybody starts at same line and then you have bunch of players and teams all over the world, not necessarily the absolute top teams/players. yes, you could easily do seedings for example high-medium-low buckets and draw 2 from each or something like that and you would have fairer groups no question but yeah..., just accept it's a bit different
|
On February 20 2019 04:52 It's britney bitch wrote:wesg has been traditionally drawing quite wild groups, this been going in other games too such was 1.6 cs etc. long time so it's kinda different type of a tournament than others in terms of pre-seedings. the point is i guess that everybody starts at same line and then you have bunch of players and teams all over the world, not necessarily the absolute top teams/players. yes, you could easily do seedings for example high-medium-low buckets and draw 2 from each or something like that and you would have fairer groups no question but yeah..., just accept it's a bit different
When did WESG have 1.6 CS?
|
On February 20 2019 04:16 fronkschnonk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2019 04:04 Tommy131313 wrote:On February 19 2019 21:40 Nakajin wrote:On February 19 2019 20:11 Rodya wrote:
Aligulac and WCS points are both bad metrics. You might disagree, but it is not an objective matter like you think it is. Well it's still the best we have, unless we go full subjective, it's better to have a metric that can favor foreigner or Koreans a bit than to decide we are the god of Starcraft and that actually Stats losing in the round of 32 dosen't count or things like that. Don't worry about the Rodya guy, he's the friendly little troll of TL At least he gives some cause for discussion :D @Rodya You'll have either no ranking or a ranking based on criteria chosen by human judgement. I prefer the idea to opt for the most reasonable and most widely accepted ranking there is (which would be aligulac). But as I said: in addition put players in skill groups and seed them randomly into the groups to make their exact placement in the ranking less impactful.
Aligulac is one immensely useful tool and I'm glad it exists!
However, the problem with it is that it does reward immensely not dropping maps in a series and that it doesn't give reward to actually winning matches(it doesn't take into consideration the outcome of the series but merely how many maps did you win or lose) so you might want to mediate it with another kind of ranking that instead take only victories into account(something like Gosugamers' ranking if I am not wrong).
|
Jarppi is the chilean representative? That guy retires every 6 months only to come back and beat a lot of people lol.
|
On February 20 2019 04:16 fronkschnonk wrote:
@Rodya
You'll have either no ranking or a ranking based on criteria chosen by human judgement. I prefer the idea to opt for the most reasonable and most widely accepted ranking there is (which would be aligulac). But as I said: in addition put players in skill groups and seed them randomly into the groups to make their exact placement in the ranking less impactful.
If Aligulac is the most widely accepted ranking, than there are no good established rankings (and indeed this is the case regardless).
I would much prefer the tournament organizer use their own personal discretion in putting people into tiers, however with so many players that is quite tough to do, and there are not very many world class players at this event (there are 4 elite players, and a few middling players, and many irrelevant players).
So I think it is reasonable to do what was done: split the 4 elite players apart into separate groups and randomly draw the rest.
|
I would much prefer the tournament organizer use their own personal discretion in putting people into tiers.
That's a terrible idea
|
Canada8991 Posts
On February 20 2019 07:40 Argonauta wrote:Show nested quote +I would much prefer the tournament organizer use their own personal discretion in putting people into tiers. That's a terrible idea
Ya no way, on top of leading to an everlasting shit storm of complain and snarky remark about ranking that would follow, it would be super unfair for less known player, tournament organizer could just make up the group as a way to have the most popular player stay in. If someone fuck up in a tournament, they fuck up, they should not be given a pass because "I swear they are better than everyone else", same thing if someone do well. It's already hard enough to get up in the world of SC2 we don't need organizer screwing player around because they have less star power. And if Aligulac is not good enough just take last year WCS results, it's been a while but at least it's something, or even ladder MMR for god sake, it would be profoundly stupid but at least everyone would get the same stupid treatment.
|
I've seen other games do seeding based on the organizers discretion, it's better than nothing. Although it has turned to shitshows like what happened with the Smash Ultimate seeding at Genesis, but in a more established game like SC2 it really isn't too difficult to put a player list like this into tiers and do seeding based of that, GSL does something similar.
|
On February 20 2019 08:02 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
I've seen other games do seeding based on the organizers discretion, it's better than nothing. Although it has turned to shitshows like what happened with the Smash Ultimate seeding at Genesis, but in a more established game like SC2 it really isn't too difficult to put a player list like this into tiers and do seeding based of that, GSL does something similar.
GSL's system is based on recent GSL results, right? That's why Scarlett moved up from Tier 4 to Tier 3 partway through last year.
|
On February 20 2019 07:37 Rodya wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2019 04:16 fronkschnonk wrote:
@Rodya
You'll have either no ranking or a ranking based on criteria chosen by human judgement. I prefer the idea to opt for the most reasonable and most widely accepted ranking there is (which would be aligulac). But as I said: in addition put players in skill groups and seed them randomly into the groups to make their exact placement in the ranking less impactful. If Aligulac is the most widely accepted ranking, than there are no good established rankings (and indeed this is the case regardless). I would much prefer the tournament organizer use their own personal discretion in putting people into tiers, however with so many players that is quite tough to do, and there are not very many world class players at this event (there are 4 elite players, and a few middling players, and many irrelevant players). So I think it is reasonable to do what was done: split the 4 elite players apart into separate groups and randomly draw the rest.
You're repeating that aligulac is somehow a bad ranking but aren't providing any reasons. Apart from a few outliers, the ranking seems to match with most people's personal rankings. So the ranking of the tournament organizer probably wouldn't look very different (if at all!).
But a ranking made based on criteria which aren't transparent is always susceptible to manipulation due to possible conflicts of interest.
And again: just make skillgroups and seed from them. No need to go in the smallest detail of the ranking.
|
|
|
On February 20 2019 11:41 darhumewin wrote:
Serral vs Maru finals
Wouldn't be opposed to that
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
