|
On November 25 2019 16:17 tigon_ridge wrote:
Huge thanks to Dennis Gehlen for his dedication, professionalism, and willingness to listen to members of the community, particularly regarding tournament format. This easily could've been Reynor's trophy if you had stuck with the older, worse grand final format. In fact, the results suggest that that would have been the case.
This is only really true since Reynor wins 1 game before Serral wins the last two, had it been the old format, but with a bo9 instead it would've panned out the exact same as it did today. I think bo9 is rly smth we should do a lot more in SC2.
That said, I think the new format is actually horrible in all of the cases where Serral does not go 3:2.
Reynor can win 3:0 and Grand Finals is over that's horrible. Serral can win 3:0 the first series, then lose 2-1, he would've gone 4-2, but lost. That is a travesty, I hope they don't stick to this format.
Extended Series is a meme, but it rly does make sense, though it's probably a lot easier to just go with the 1-0 favour for winners bracket winner.
|
On November 25 2019 22:45 samAel1 wrote:Any pro's talking about balance after the event? Toss looks pretty weak against zerg in every stage of the game  Or maybe toss nowadays are weak players?
There are rather comprehensive lists already in the net for why exactly all kind balance whining is absolutely too premature concerning still yet oncoming patch and the results of this particular tournament. Worth to go, seek and check yourself.
Not the first time I say this, but sooner the ladder and all tournaments start force players play as Random in top level competitive scene, sooner we get rid of most of unconstructive balance crying, and sooner we all (= The whole CS2 scene) will get more objective perception whom are the best players of the game.
For some mysterious reasons, that approach seems to be rather unpopular even if it would be most easiest way to balance things properly, permanently, and constructively. As If every player must learn play with every races, possible technical balance issues will get rendered out of considerations with that arrangement.
The real universal SC2 skill and talent would be easy to see and determine, by all. In circumstances of diminishing resources and input to the game by Blizzard Inc. it is highly questionable can they ever fix the balance to a point it would be statistically even over whole scene in every matchups and levels of competition before a grey corporate exec just decide "Ok. that's about that. That shall be the abandonware version of SC2". Such version will likely be left unbalanced in various ways. In that case long term problematics just fade a way if everyone play Random.
This tournament was impressive and epic in every way possible. New standard for SC2 tournament for the future.
|
On November 25 2019 23:03 UnLarva wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2019 22:45 samAel1 wrote:Any pro's talking about balance after the event? Toss looks pretty weak against zerg in every stage of the game Or maybe toss nowadays are weak players? There are rather comprehensive lists already in the net for why exactly all kind balance whining is absolutely too premature concerning still yet oncoming patch and the results of this particular tournament. Worth to go, seek and check yourself. Not the first time I say this, but sooner the ladder and all tournaments start force players play as Random in top level competitive scene, sooner we get rid of most of unconstructive balance crying, and sooner we all (= The whole CS2 scene) will get more objective perception whom are the best players of the game. For some mysterious reasons, that approach seems to be rather unpopular even if it would be most easiest way to balance things properly, permanently, and constructively. As If every player must learn play with every races, possible technical balance issues will get rendered out of considerations with that arrangement. The real universal SC2 skill and talent would be easy to see and determine, by all. In circumstances of diminishing resources and input to the game by Blizzard Inc. it is highly questionable can they ever fix the balance to a point it would be statistically even over whole scene in every matchups and levels of competition before a grey corporate exec just deside "Ok. that's about that. That shall be the abandonware version of SC2". Such version will likely be left unbalanced in various ways. In that case long term problematics just fade a way if everyone play Random. This tournament was impressive and epic in every way possible. New standard for SC2 tournament for the future.
Very interesting point of view.
From my side, as I play as low diamond toss game isnt unbalanced (even thought I always loose to late game mech, Im not crying about that  ) but when Im watching pros late game PvZ... Its really painful to watch bl-corr-inf-n-shit in every high level game beating toss like a b*tch Im out of ideas how to balance it tho
|
This Serral guy... sounds like a pretty good player. : )
|
On November 25 2019 23:12 samAel1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2019 23:03 UnLarva wrote:On November 25 2019 22:45 samAel1 wrote:Any pro's talking about balance after the event? Toss looks pretty weak against zerg in every stage of the game Or maybe toss nowadays are weak players? There are rather comprehensive lists already in the net for why exactly all kind balance whining is absolutely too premature concerning still yet oncoming patch and the results of this particular tournament. Worth to go, seek and check yourself. Not the first time I say this, but sooner the ladder and all tournaments start force players play as Random in top level competitive scene, sooner we get rid of most of unconstructive balance crying, and sooner we all (= The whole CS2 scene) will get more objective perception whom are the best players of the game. For some mysterious reasons, that approach seems to be rather unpopular even if it would be most easiest way to balance things properly, permanently, and constructively. As If every player must learn play with every races, possible technical balance issues will get rendered out of considerations with that arrangement. The real universal SC2 skill and talent would be easy to see and determine, by all. In circumstances of diminishing resources and input to the game by Blizzard Inc. it is highly questionable can they ever fix the balance to a point it would be statistically even over whole scene in every matchups and levels of competition before a grey corporate exec just deside "Ok. that's about that. That shall be the abandonware version of SC2". Such version will likely be left unbalanced in various ways. In that case long term problematics just fade a way if everyone play Random. This tournament was impressive and epic in every way possible. New standard for SC2 tournament for the future. Very interesting point of view. From my side, as I play as low diamond toss game isnt unbalanced (even thought I always loose to late game mech, Im not crying about that ) but when Im watching pros late game PvZ... Its really painful to watch bl-corr-inf-n-shit in every high level game beating toss like a b*tch Im out of ideas how to balance it tho
But then, if one race was perceived as better than the other 2, and as an exanple, a player in a bo3 got lucky and with it for 2 or 3 times ina row - and his adversary didn't, people would say that the series was won out of luck and not skill.
It will never be perfect and whineless
|
"It will never be perfect and whineless"
True. But then there could be also different kind tournament brackets and arrangements in the ladder to remedy these kind "luck"/RNG related things. For example a groups of a tournament would be smaller for allowing more games between players for that they must play mirrors against each other from both sides of that matchup, as example. Or on Ladder, for example, if "luck" makes you play 'too much' Protoss, then your chance to get Protoss for next game is lowered accordingly.
Its certainly easier to fix any tournament bracket system than it is to fix technical balance issues arising from the coding of the game.
|
On November 25 2019 23:12 samAel1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2019 23:03 UnLarva wrote:On November 25 2019 22:45 samAel1 wrote:Any pro's talking about balance after the event? Toss looks pretty weak against zerg in every stage of the game Or maybe toss nowadays are weak players? There are rather comprehensive lists already in the net for why exactly all kind balance whining is absolutely too premature concerning still yet oncoming patch and the results of this particular tournament. Worth to go, seek and check yourself. Not the first time I say this, but sooner the ladder and all tournaments start force players play as Random in top level competitive scene, sooner we get rid of most of unconstructive balance crying, and sooner we all (= The whole CS2 scene) will get more objective perception whom are the best players of the game. For some mysterious reasons, that approach seems to be rather unpopular even if it would be most easiest way to balance things properly, permanently, and constructively. As If every player must learn play with every races, possible technical balance issues will get rendered out of considerations with that arrangement. The real universal SC2 skill and talent would be easy to see and determine, by all. In circumstances of diminishing resources and input to the game by Blizzard Inc. it is highly questionable can they ever fix the balance to a point it would be statistically even over whole scene in every matchups and levels of competition before a grey corporate exec just deside "Ok. that's about that. That shall be the abandonware version of SC2". Such version will likely be left unbalanced in various ways. In that case long term problematics just fade a way if everyone play Random. This tournament was impressive and epic in every way possible. New standard for SC2 tournament for the future. Very interesting point of view. From my side, as I play as low diamond toss game isnt unbalanced (even thought I always loose to late game mech, Im not crying about that ) but when Im watching pros late game PvZ... Its really painful to watch bl-corr-inf-n-shit in every high level game beating toss like a b*tch Im out of ideas how to balance it tho
Well, these are the late game tier 3 units of Zerg...
I feel most of the games were not won cause of the army clash but also what was going on everywhere. Serral and Reynor defended runbys almost perfectly every time while doing damage with ling/ bling/ roach squads themselves and slowly sucked the life from their opponents.
Don't forget Zerg invest HEEEEAAAAVY into static defense while Protoss and Terran skip out on those very often. Imagine a Protoss builds 40+ canons and shield batteries on the front and in defense of runbys like Zerg do with Spores and Spines
|
Guys, what about HuK's Best Game Award? Are we supposed to vote for the best game? If so, when and where can I vote?
|
Congrats to Serral, and for Reynor for such an amazing performance. Shame I missed this, sounded like it was awesome. Here's to a fantastic 2020 for SC2!.
|
What a great show! Wish to go there some time in the future. Congratulations for Serral and Raynor for taking the top spots!
To the small minority who whine about Zerg, remember that Serral and Raynor are amazing players. The other Zergs did not do well, except for soO but really it's soO he is one of the greatest and most consistent of all time. Raynor and Serral were the best players this tournament and in a balanced patch it makes sense that they meet in the finals. As a terran player I'd love for a terran player to be the best, but that just isn't the case right now.
Look at the top of the groups: 4 Zerg, 6 Terran, 6 Protoss. In a tournament with 11 Zergs, 12 Terran and 9 Protoss. 50% of Terran made it to the play offs, 67% of Protoss and 36% of Zergs. Terran has a winning% vs Zerg in this tournament (52%) and protoss is almost exactly equal.
And to the Korean elitists, you don't have to worry! Koreans smashed this tournament except for Serral and Raynor. Don't worry about them falling off, there are only two that can consistently challenge them (let's be real, Bunny falling out in group stages isn't an indication of anything).
So everyone can be happy, Serral and Raynor fanboys, Balance whiners, Korean elitists and the community at large! :-)
|
Zurich15310 Posts
The was the most special tournament I have been to in 10 years of going to SC2 events. I am so happy that I got to be part of HSC and this HSCXX especially. What an amazing celebration of Starcraft and this amazing community.
|
I have no particular complains about Bo5 / Bo5+Bo3 system when using double elimination. It's much better than just +1 map for a Winner brackets winner in the finals. After all a loser finalist was already 'eliminated' once when he drops to the losers bracket. Elimimated player really need/should/must reset the score before he can reach to the final, deciding games. No problems what ever with that, but for ensuring that really best players in the tournament will reach to Ro4, there should be more internal 'control' in how many ways that can happen, IMO.
Is there any realistic (by time constraints set by the reality itself and players, audiences, and tournament organisers' well-being) ways to make it so that there would be a chance for a loser bracket player to rise to the winner bracket by their game performances during a tournament? Already eliminated player could for example rise back to upper bracket if winning 2 or 3 consecutive matches, but having to match against the dropping player (at that latest moment someone drops) in Bo1 or Bo3? That would mean also something in the lower bracket then if once eliminated dropping player happens to lose to that uprising consecutive loser bracket winner. Maybe something like direct swap with the worst loser bracket player measured by map score in their entirety that far in that tournament. Loser would just drop out of contention (even if being a winner of his/hers last match) in that case.
The point of these thoughts is to seek a format that maximize the likelihood for best players being in last matches of the tournament, allowing more chances for tactical throws short term to get as far as possible, but also making it possible to recover from a one bad match or sub-par group performance that put a player to lower bracket, before the finals.
Current system is fine overall, but it potentially makes a player who loses his/hers first playoffs match look much more accomplished if he/she manage to make it to the finals, than player who made an uninterrupted, but considerably shorter upper bracket winning streak into the finals.
That's how I see Serral's meta endgame now. It was not that bad decision to throw a series against Inno if that can help to avoid meeting Reynor too soon, lol. For Note, that was same meta strategy Maru has used in the past in his apparent fear of Serral, tho failing in it this far. 
|
Great to see Serral take the win with Reynor having four match points during the final.
Pretty cool event overall also. Thanks for the people who made it happen.
|
On November 26 2019 01:36 UnLarva wrote:I have no particular complains about Bo5 / Bo5+Bo3 system when using double elimination. It's much better than just +1 map for a Winner brackets winner in the finals. After all a loser finalist was already 'eliminated' once when he drops to the losers bracket. Elimimated player really need/should/must reset the score before he can reach to the final, deciding games. No problems what ever with that, but for ensuring that really best players in the tournament will reach to Ro4, there should be more internal 'control' in how many ways that can happen, IMO. Is there any realistic (by time constraints set by the reality itself and players, audiences, and tournament organisers' well-being) ways to make it so that there would be a chance for a loser bracket player to rise to the winner bracket by their game performances during a tournament? Already eliminated player could for example rise back to upper bracket if winning 2 or 3 consecutive matches, but having to match against the dropping player (at that latest moment someone drops) in Bo1 or Bo3? That would mean also something in the lower bracket then if once eliminated dropping player happens to lose to that uprising consecutive loser bracket winner. Maybe something like direct swap with the worst loser bracket player measured by map score in their entirety that far in that tournament. Loser would just drop out of contention (even if being a winner of his/hers last match) in that case. The point of these thoughts is to seek a format that maximize the likelihood for best players being in last matches of the tournament, allowing more chances for tactical throws short term to get as far as possible, but also making it possible to recover from a one bad match or sub-par group performance that put a player to lower bracket, before the finals. Current system is fine overall, but it potentially makes a player who loses his/hers first playoffs match look much more accomplished if he/she manage to make it to the finals, than player who made an uninterrupted, but considerably shorter upper bracket winning streak into the finals. That's how I see Serral's meta endgame now. It was not that bad decision to throw a series against Inno if that can help to avoid meeting Reynor too soon, lol. For Note, that was same meta strategy Maru has used in the past in his apparent fear of Serral, tho failing in it this far.
Elimination brackets are never going to be 100% "fair". If you want the "right" order for every single player, you need a giant round robin group, probably with each player facing each other multiple times.
Like in German soccer there is an league (=giant round robin group) and a cup (=single elimination bracket) wich are two completly different formats.
A giant round robin group would just not work that well as a SC2 tournament. Blizz tried that with WCS Winter this year and the comunity over all wasn t that happy.
I still remember, that Reynor got straight in the final by finishing 1st in the round robin and everyone was complaining, that there were no built up for that.
|
On November 26 2019 01:52 dbRic1203 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2019 01:36 UnLarva wrote:I have no particular complains about Bo5 / Bo5+Bo3 system when using double elimination. It's much better than just +1 map for a Winner brackets winner in the finals. After all a loser finalist was already 'eliminated' once when he drops to the losers bracket. Elimimated player really need/should/must reset the score before he can reach to the final, deciding games. No problems what ever with that, but for ensuring that really best players in the tournament will reach to Ro4, there should be more internal 'control' in how many ways that can happen, IMO. Is there any realistic (by time constraints set by the reality itself and players, audiences, and tournament organisers' well-being) ways to make it so that there would be a chance for a loser bracket player to rise to the winner bracket by their game performances during a tournament? Already eliminated player could for example rise back to upper bracket if winning 2 or 3 consecutive matches, but having to match against the dropping player (at that latest moment someone drops) in Bo1 or Bo3? That would mean also something in the lower bracket then if once eliminated dropping player happens to lose to that uprising consecutive loser bracket winner. Maybe something like direct swap with the worst loser bracket player measured by map score in their entirety that far in that tournament. Loser would just drop out of contention (even if being a winner of his/hers last match) in that case. The point of these thoughts is to seek a format that maximize the likelihood for best players being in last matches of the tournament, allowing more chances for tactical throws short term to get as far as possible, but also making it possible to recover from a one bad match or sub-par group performance that put a player to lower bracket, before the finals. Current system is fine overall, but it potentially makes a player who loses his/hers first playoffs match look much more accomplished if he/she manage to make it to the finals, than player who made an uninterrupted, but considerably shorter upper bracket winning streak into the finals. That's how I see Serral's meta endgame now. It was not that bad decision to throw a series against Inno if that can help to avoid meeting Reynor too soon, lol. For Note, that was same meta strategy Maru has used in the past in his apparent fear of Serral, tho failing in it this far. Elimination brackets are never going to be 100% "fair". If you want the "right" order for every single player, you need a giant round robin group, probably with each player facing each other multiple times. Like in German soccer there is an league (=giant round robin group) and a cup (=single elimination bracket) wich are two completly different formats. A giant round robin group would just not work that well as a SC2 tournament. Blizz tried that with WCS Winter this year and the comunity over all wasn t that happy. I still remember, that Reynor got straight in the final by finishing 1st in the round robin and everyone was complaining, that there were no built up for that.
I really liked that format, though. Oh, well... People prefer drama and excitement over substance, unfortunately.
|
Awesome Tourney, as always. Little unfortunate about having ZvZ finals, as most tours had this year.
Keep going, Take!
|
Thanks for doing all this awesomeness....ich liebe es!
|
On November 26 2019 02:24 tigon_ridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2019 01:52 dbRic1203 wrote:On November 26 2019 01:36 UnLarva wrote:I have no particular complains about Bo5 / Bo5+Bo3 system when using double elimination. It's much better than just +1 map for a Winner brackets winner in the finals. After all a loser finalist was already 'eliminated' once when he drops to the losers bracket. Elimimated player really need/should/must reset the score before he can reach to the final, deciding games. No problems what ever with that, but for ensuring that really best players in the tournament will reach to Ro4, there should be more internal 'control' in how many ways that can happen, IMO. Is there any realistic (by time constraints set by the reality itself and players, audiences, and tournament organisers' well-being) ways to make it so that there would be a chance for a loser bracket player to rise to the winner bracket by their game performances during a tournament? Already eliminated player could for example rise back to upper bracket if winning 2 or 3 consecutive matches, but having to match against the dropping player (at that latest moment someone drops) in Bo1 or Bo3? That would mean also something in the lower bracket then if once eliminated dropping player happens to lose to that uprising consecutive loser bracket winner. Maybe something like direct swap with the worst loser bracket player measured by map score in their entirety that far in that tournament. Loser would just drop out of contention (even if being a winner of his/hers last match) in that case. The point of these thoughts is to seek a format that maximize the likelihood for best players being in last matches of the tournament, allowing more chances for tactical throws short term to get as far as possible, but also making it possible to recover from a one bad match or sub-par group performance that put a player to lower bracket, before the finals. Current system is fine overall, but it potentially makes a player who loses his/hers first playoffs match look much more accomplished if he/she manage to make it to the finals, than player who made an uninterrupted, but considerably shorter upper bracket winning streak into the finals. That's how I see Serral's meta endgame now. It was not that bad decision to throw a series against Inno if that can help to avoid meeting Reynor too soon, lol. For Note, that was same meta strategy Maru has used in the past in his apparent fear of Serral, tho failing in it this far. Elimination brackets are never going to be 100% "fair". If you want the "right" order for every single player, you need a giant round robin group, probably with each player facing each other multiple times. Like in German soccer there is an league (=giant round robin group) and a cup (=single elimination bracket) wich are two completly different formats. A giant round robin group would just not work that well as a SC2 tournament. Blizz tried that with WCS Winter this year and the comunity over all wasn t that happy. I still remember, that Reynor got straight in the final by finishing 1st in the round robin and everyone was complaining, that there were no built up for that. I really liked that format, though. Oh, well... People prefer drama and excitement over substance, unfortunately.
I really really like that format too, and I loath artificial drama (not counting moments of pathological drunkenness). For me it all is pretty much about the defense of that substance, and the integrity of the talent against bullshitters and cying-for-vainers. Structures, habits, customs, and conventions can be easily chanced to UN-support those ill-spirited phenoms and perpetual whiners, but this require that people clearly recognize where and whom are carrying that substance, and what are general out-of-game frameworks that can even theoretically happen. In-game.
HSC XXI should go random.
|
On November 26 2019 00:58 Facenapalm wrote:
Guys, what about HuK's Best Game Award? Are we supposed to vote for the best game? If so, when and where can I vote?
They are still choosing some of the best games and then they will share how the community can vote on social media soon!
|
On November 26 2019 02:43 UnLarva wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2019 02:24 tigon_ridge wrote:On November 26 2019 01:52 dbRic1203 wrote:On November 26 2019 01:36 UnLarva wrote:I have no particular complains about Bo5 / Bo5+Bo3 system when using double elimination. It's much better than just +1 map for a Winner brackets winner in the finals. After all a loser finalist was already 'eliminated' once when he drops to the losers bracket. Elimimated player really need/should/must reset the score before he can reach to the final, deciding games. No problems what ever with that, but for ensuring that really best players in the tournament will reach to Ro4, there should be more internal 'control' in how many ways that can happen, IMO. Is there any realistic (by time constraints set by the reality itself and players, audiences, and tournament organisers' well-being) ways to make it so that there would be a chance for a loser bracket player to rise to the winner bracket by their game performances during a tournament? Already eliminated player could for example rise back to upper bracket if winning 2 or 3 consecutive matches, but having to match against the dropping player (at that latest moment someone drops) in Bo1 or Bo3? That would mean also something in the lower bracket then if once eliminated dropping player happens to lose to that uprising consecutive loser bracket winner. Maybe something like direct swap with the worst loser bracket player measured by map score in their entirety that far in that tournament. Loser would just drop out of contention (even if being a winner of his/hers last match) in that case. The point of these thoughts is to seek a format that maximize the likelihood for best players being in last matches of the tournament, allowing more chances for tactical throws short term to get as far as possible, but also making it possible to recover from a one bad match or sub-par group performance that put a player to lower bracket, before the finals. Current system is fine overall, but it potentially makes a player who loses his/hers first playoffs match look much more accomplished if he/she manage to make it to the finals, than player who made an uninterrupted, but considerably shorter upper bracket winning streak into the finals. That's how I see Serral's meta endgame now. It was not that bad decision to throw a series against Inno if that can help to avoid meeting Reynor too soon, lol. For Note, that was same meta strategy Maru has used in the past in his apparent fear of Serral, tho failing in it this far. Elimination brackets are never going to be 100% "fair". If you want the "right" order for every single player, you need a giant round robin group, probably with each player facing each other multiple times. Like in German soccer there is an league (=giant round robin group) and a cup (=single elimination bracket) wich are two completly different formats. A giant round robin group would just not work that well as a SC2 tournament. Blizz tried that with WCS Winter this year and the comunity over all wasn t that happy. I still remember, that Reynor got straight in the final by finishing 1st in the round robin and everyone was complaining, that there were no built up for that. I really liked that format, though. Oh, well... People prefer drama and excitement over substance, unfortunately. I really really like that format too, and I loath artificial drama (not counting moments of pathological drunkenness). For me it all is pretty much about the defense of that substance, and the integrity of the talent against bullshitters and cying-for-vainers. Structures, habits, customs, and conventions can be easily chanced to UN-support those ill-spirited phenoms and perpetual whiners, but this require that people clearly recognize where and whom are carrying that substance, and what are general out-of-game frameworks that can even theoretically happen. In-game. HSC XXI should go random.
Sorry, I got completely lost after your first sentence...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
