EPTOn May 12 2020 19:47 hjpalpha wrote:
Days 1& 2 are scheduled:
TeamLiquid StarLeague/5
Days 1& 2 are scheduled:
TeamLiquid StarLeague/5I personally do not like the schedule conflicts with all the EU ESL Open Cups in these weeks, but what ever
Shopify TSL 5 - The Bracket - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
hjpalpha
Germany339 Posts
I personally do not like the schedule conflicts with all the EU ESL Open Cups in these weeks, but what ever | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7390 Posts
On May 12 2020 19:48 hjpalpha wrote: I personally do not like the schedule conflicts with all the ESL Open CUps in these weeks, but what ever You know there is an "Edit" button right? Everyone has to play ONE match on sunday. Should be no trouble at all to schedule around ESL weekly | ||
|
ballehatten
Denmark56 Posts
| ||
|
hjpalpha
Germany339 Posts
On May 12 2020 19:52 Harris1st wrote: You know there is an "Edit" button right? Everyone has to play ONE match on sunday. Should be no trouble at all to schedule around ESL weekly there is a 15 minute walkover timer for esl open cups (starting after a match becomes available) .. and eu esl open cups usually go from 2pm until ~7 or 8 pm cest while TSL goes from 2pm until 10 pm, so i do not see how that will properly work regarding the edit button: i know that it exists, but the first post was for the announcement as i added the stuff on liquipedia and the second message was my personal opinion | ||
|
hjpalpha
Germany339 Posts
On May 12 2020 20:00 ballehatten wrote: Nice to see no advantage in the finals So you rather have an unfair event than a fair one, good to know .... | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
| ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
On May 13 2020 00:01 hjpalpha wrote: So you rather have an unfair event than a fair one, good to know .... Gotta blame the organizers for trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to the tournament format rather than a random viewer who just wants to see a nice 0-0 on the scoreboard when the grand final begins | ||
Liquid`TLO
Germany767 Posts
Most pros prefer an even fight for the title. | ||
|
arcane1129
United States273 Posts
The "losers bracket player needs to play more games so that's the winner's advantage" is ridiculous. Playing more games is the punishment for losing when you do in the bracket. In larger brackets, losing round 1 and going on to win the tournament means many more games played vs losing late in bracket. | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote: I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket. Most pros prefer an even fight for the title. Need an opinion on the HSC format then (1 map up in bo7)! To me, it always seemed the reasonable middle-ground between winner advantage and time-consrtraint affected doubl series. | ||
|
Liquid`TLO
Germany767 Posts
On May 13 2020 01:34 Ej_ wrote: Need an opinion on the HSC format then (1 map up in bo7)! To me, it always seemed the reasonable middle-ground between winner advantage and time-consrtraint affected doubl series. perosnally that leave a bitter taste if the finals are decided 4-3 with the winner bracket player winning. To me the finals is the ultimate test between 2 players. It's kind of disappointing to know the winner really just won by drawing 3-3. The disadvantage having to show way more of your strategies as well as general fatigue from playing a lot more series is underplayed by a lot of people here. (fatigue in the case of TSL not really being case because of the lengthy format but SC2 on the highest level requires way more energy than some people realize.) | ||
|
arcane1129
United States273 Posts
On May 13 2020 01:59 Liquid`TLO wrote: perosnally that leave a bitter taste if the finals are decided 4-3 with the winner bracket player winning. To me the finals is the ultimate test between 2 players. It's kind of disappointing to know the winner really just won by drawing 3-3. The disadvantage having to show way more of your strategies as well as general fatigue from playing a lot more series is underplayed by a lot of people here. (fatigue in the case of TSL not really being case because of the lengthy format but SC2 on the highest level requires way more energy than some people realize.) I agree that a 3-3 final is lame, but so is the potential for player A to beat player B in winner's finals 3-0 and then lose to player B 3-2 in grands. This would mean they both only lost 1 set (to each other) but the player that went 5-3 head to head lost. What are your feelings on Bo5 set 1 and bo3 set 2 (if needed) for grands? | ||
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
On May 13 2020 02:15 arcane1129 wrote: I agree that a 3-3 final is lame, but so is the potential for player A to beat player B in winner's finals 3-0 and then lose to player B 3-2 in grands. This would mean they both only lost 1 set (to each other) but the player that went 5-3 head to head lost. What are your feelings on Bo5 set 1 and bo3 set 2 (if needed) for grands? You can't plan a tournament around every possible result though. Like taking the format you mentioned, what if player B loses 2-3 initially, then wins 3-0 in the grand finals and then player A wins 2-1 in the extra bo3? "You may have lost the grand finals 2-4 overall player A, but congratulations, you're the champ anyway." is the lamest outcome. Not to mention it's a much less fair format than a Bo7 with 1 game advantage - A can win the finals by winning 2, 3 or 4 maps, B always needs to win 5. I'd like to see a Bo7 format tested where the winner bracket player has the right to change the map order to some degree (like the 1st seed in GSL group selections can switch 2 players). Create favorable conditions without outright handing them the wins. | ||
|
arcane1129
United States273 Posts
On May 13 2020 03:10 Elentos wrote: You can't plan a tournament around every possible result though. Like taking the format you mentioned, what if player B loses 2-3 initially, then wins 3-0 in the grand finals and then player A wins 2-1 in the extra bo3? "You may have lost the grand finals 2-4 overall player A, but congratulations, you're the champ anyway." is the lamest outcome. Not to mention it's a much less fair format than a Bo7 with 1 game advantage - A can win the finals by winning 2, 3 or 4 maps, B always needs to win 5. I'd like to see a Bo7 format tested where the winner bracket player has the right to change the map order to some degree (like the 1st seed in GSL group selections can switch 2 players). Create favorable conditions without outright handing them the wins. In that case, player B still won 2 sets to 1 and you just chose to ignore winner's finals in the game count. Sets always take priority over game count. The problem with not doing 2 sets in grand finals is that you can have a situation where first and second place only lost 1 set, completely defeating the point of a double elim bracket. That is the only reason I brought up game count, because in that case set losses are tied at 1 each. A 1 game advantage bo7 I'm okay with, but I don't think is ideal for either the spectators or the players. The 1 game advantage is arbitrary and not indicative of a set win advantage as it should be. However, I still view it as an acceptable middle ground. Also, the bo3 would be played only after both players have each dropped a set in bracket and is an independent set from the first set in grand finals. Ideally, this set would also be a bo5. This is the proper way to do it. You're making an unfair comparison by saying player A only needs to win 2 games in grands vs 5 because you're ignoring the rest of the bracket results and set count entirely. The only reason I suggested bo3, as it has already been done by HSC, is because SC games can be long and a potential 10 game grand finals (if each set went 5 games) would be exhausting for everyone involved. Edit: Misunderstood what you said for one part, made some edits | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19384 Posts
On May 13 2020 03:10 Elentos wrote: You can't plan a tournament around every possible result though. Like taking the format you mentioned, what if player B loses 2-3 initially, then wins 3-0 in the grand finals and then player A wins 2-1 in the extra bo3? "You may have lost the grand finals 2-4 overall player A, but congratulations, you're the champ anyway." is the lamest outcome. Not to mention it's a much less fair format than a Bo7 with 1 game advantage - A can win the finals by winning 2, 3 or 4 maps, B always needs to win 5. I'd like to see a Bo7 format tested where the winner bracket player has the right to change the map order to some degree (like the 1st seed in GSL group selections can switch 2 players). Create favorable conditions without outright handing them the wins. I like the map advantage idea too. Even if each player picks every other map, if the winner picks first in a full series they also get to pick the ace map too. It's very similar to home court advantage in the NBA. | ||
|
Liquid`TLO
Germany767 Posts
On May 13 2020 01:34 Ej_ wrote: Need an opinion on the HSC format then (1 map up in bo7)! To me, it always seemed the reasonable middle-ground between winner advantage and time-consrtraint affected doubl series. Leading 1-0 in a bo7 is definitely preferred to the to bo5/bo3 stuff. Overall I think a clean bo7 is still the nicest finals wise. I really appreciate it in a sense but it's actually kind of funny that some fans care about the ultimate fairness of a tournament format more than most players. | ||
|
JJH777
United States4420 Posts
On May 13 2020 00:01 hjpalpha wrote: So you rather have an unfair event than a fair one, good to know .... If you really care about fairness then you should want every SC2 event to be a giant round robin with large incentives for winning games even once mathematically eliminated and the player who finishes with the highest mapscore wins. That is the only possible way to make an event that is truly fair from start to finish. Every other type of event is going to have luck that favors certain people. That doesn't happen because it would be an unbelievably boring event. Winners bracket advantage is just stupid. There's a pro in here saying that most pros don't like it. That should tell you everything by itself. Anyone who is playing in an event is still going to try their absolute hardest to get to the finals from the winners bracket. Having to play more games and having less time to rest before the finals is already a big disadvantage and I guarantee that if you look at the statistics the player who comes from the winners bracket usually wins regardless of whether there is an advantage or not. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On May 13 2020 03:47 BisuDagger wrote: I like the map advantage idea too. Even if each player picks every other map, if the winner picks first in a full series they also get to pick the ace map too. It's very similar to home court advantage in the NBA. You're still playing on the same 7 maps though. Whereas in the NBA you'll play more games on your home court if all games are played. Having more control over the order of the maps is more a psychological advantage than anything else. | ||
|
catplanetcatplanet
3837 Posts
As a viewer I have to admit I kinda dig the format where the losers bracket player has to win two series, but there are probably a lot of good reasons why it isn't used much. | ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
| ||
| ||
