TLS Championship - It Is Time - Page 5

2Pacalypse-

Croatia9446 Posts

January 06 2016 11:39 GMT

#81

On January 06 2016 20:29 Pulimuli wrote:
Ill be at work when the sign in is starting, does that mean i cant sign in/sign up?

Sign-up is opened right now. Everyone who signs-up will be considered as participating in the tournament and included in the match-ups, even if they miss the first week.

TT1

Canada9968 Posts

January 06 2016 19:28 GMT

#82

fuck i only have 2-3 days to practice -_-..

Slayer91

Ireland23335 Posts

January 06 2016 21:06 GMT

#83

more like 7 weeks don't think the good players will have much trouble getting to the top 32

iamho

United States3345 Posts

January 06 2016 21:57 GMT

#84

Wow, that's a huge prize pool for a foreign tournament.

Cele

Germany4016 Posts

January 07 2016 00:46 GMT

#85

your notable player table at the top end of the player list isn't really up to date atm. Some notable players are not on it.

2Pacalypse-

Croatia9446 Posts

January 07 2016 01:12 GMT

#86

On January 07 2016 09:46 Cele wrote:
your notable player table at the top end of the player list isn't really up to date atm. Some notable players are not on it.

Better now? :d

Cele

Germany4016 Posts

January 07 2016 02:26 GMT

#87

now there's also somebody on the list who is most definitely not notable

well in all seriousness, i think the list it could use some refreshing, so people have a good idea of the who is who of the current foreign scene, but obviously it's a question of one's POV.

It's not really important but i was bored and wanted to bump this thread ^^

dRaW

Canada5744 Posts

January 07 2016 07:44 GMT

#88

Looking forward to the casts, I guess I'll wait until week 4 to sign up and hope I can advance.

[sc1f]eonzerg

Belgium6413 Posts

January 07 2016 08:00 GMT

#89

No offense to cele but why is he listed as notable player? Also dienmax is pretty good and he isnt listed as one.

Cele

Germany4016 Posts

January 07 2016 13:54 GMT

#90

On January 07 2016 10:12 2Pacalypse- wrote:

Show nested quote +

Better now? :d

he is making a joke Eon.

chrisolo

Germany2605 Posts

January 07 2016 14:26 GMT

#91

On January 07 2016 17:00 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
No offense to cele but why is he listed as notable player? Also dienmax is pretty good and he isnt listed as one.

Grudgematch eOn vs Cele inc!

I am taking bets!

Eywa-

Canada4876 Posts

January 07 2016 14:56 GMT

#92

Generally, before the start of a swiss system, a player knows how many wins they need to place X or, more appropriately, how many losses they can afford to take. Is this going to be information that will be given for the players or for each player to calculate themselves?

Also, the separation between 0-2, 1-2, 2-1 and 2-0 doesn't make much sense (aside from seeding) because everyone plays the same amount of games, the amount of set wins will prove more important than any additional wins recorded within a set loss unless individual game losses are disregarded in the calculation.

The biggest problem I see with it is if you're an Elite player, there is no incentive to win 2-0, if you're playing against a C/D rank in the first round, you can easily throw one of the games to give yourself an easier opponent in the second round. This applies because if you win 5-7 rounds, you're likely going to qualify regardless of your score due to the win count.

Another problem I have with it is, it doesn't give every player the opportunity to play for a 3rd point (if in fact a seed does come down to that)

Hockey Comparison -

It's kind of like the NHL system of W = 2, OTL = 1, L = 0
The International system for Hockey is W = 3, OTW = 2, OTL = 1, L = 0

2Pacalypse-

Croatia9446 Posts

January 07 2016 16:25 GMT

#93

The seeding is the whole point of separating 0-2, 1-2, 2-1 and 2-0 results. So the players have pretty substantial incentive to win 2-0, because they'll get higher seed than winning 2-1.

Throwing the game in the first round to get an easier opponent in the second round can backfire pretty easily, since the first round is randomized, so the matchups of second round are guaranteed not to be fully representative of player's skill. And throwing that one game just might make a difference between the seed number you get, so I don't recommend it ^^.

We also do recognize that the number of sets won matter more than the number of individual games won, which is why the tiebreakers between players, if it comes to them, are determined in the following order: (1) previous head-to-head results, if any, (2) total rounds won, (3) total games won, (4) additional games played between involved parties.

2Pacalypse-

Croatia9446 Posts

January 07 2016 16:37 GMT

#94

On January 07 2016 16:44 dRaW wrote:
Looking forward to the casts, I guess I'll wait until week 4 to sign up and hope I can advance.

We had a pretty lengthy discussion about this and we have decided to allow late sign-ups only for the first two rounds. We don't want some poor guy with a result of 0-6 have to play you in the fourth round when you decide to join in.

We have also added/edited the following questions to the FAQ:

My opponent isn't responding/doesn't allow me to reschedule.
Please contact the administrator with any disputes regarding the scheduling of matches.

What happens if there's an uneven amount of players?
The lowest ranked player will receive a walkover in each round.

Can I sign up late?
You may sign up late only for the duration of first two rounds. Starting with the third round, sign ups will be closed. If you sign up late, you will receive 0-2 result for each round you've missed.

What about walkovers?
Walkovers result in a 2-0 victory for the player that was present at the scheduled time. You may not be walked over more than twice this tournament. If you receive a third walkover, you will be removed from the tournament.

Eywa-

Canada4876 Posts

January 07 2016 18:06 GMT

#95

On January 08 2016 01:25 2Pacalypse- wrote:
The seeding is the whole point of separating 0-2, 1-2, 2-1 and 2-0 results. So the players have pretty substantial incentive to win 2-0, because they'll get higher seed than winning 2-1.

Throwing the game in the first round to get an easier opponent in the second round can backfire pretty easily, since the first round is randomized, so the matchups of second round are guaranteed not to be fully representative of player's skill. And throwing that one game just might make a difference between the seed number you get, so I don't recommend it ^^.

We also do recognize that the number of sets won matter more than the number of individual games won, which is why the tiebreakers between players, if it comes to them, are determined in the following order: (1) previous head-to-head results, if any, (2) total rounds won, (3) total games won, (4) additional games played between involved parties.

I disagree, you're not necessarily increasing your chances of finishing first, but you are increasing your chances of qualification I would think. Since in your scenario of how seeding is decided (4 things listed above), losses are pretty much disregarded.

Based on that, it seems to me like

2-1 x 6 + 1-2 x1 > 2-0 x 6 + 0-2 x 1

Based on your tie breaker/seeding system, 0-2 < 1-2 < 2-1 = 2-0

If you= win 2-1, you're not necessarily increasing your chances in the second round, but you don't have to win the second round, if you have 6 wins, in a swiss system of 64 players you're basically top 4. However, by sacrificing some matches, you have a higher probability of hitting lesser players along the way I would think. (again I use probability because nothing is certain, you can run into an 0-6 draw that has now transitioned to 6-6 3 rounds later and completely screw yourself - but even losing 1 round is no big deal).

2Pacalypse-

Croatia9446 Posts

January 07 2016 20:02 GMT

#96

Ah, I see where the confusion is coming from. We're not taking set wins to determine your place in the standings table, but your individual games (ratio of win-loss games to be specific). We wanted the preliminary stage to emulate the Ladder stage as close as possible, and this is how the Ladder works (every game counts for points).

So from your example if two players had following results after seven rounds: 2-1 x6 + 1-2 x1 and 2-0 x6 + 0-2 x1, they wouldn't even be considered for tiebreakers because their total scores are: 13-8 for first player and 12-2 for second player. Since they don't have the same score, tiebreakers are not considered and their ratio of win-loss games determine their place in the standings table, ie. 12-2 score has higher ratio than 13-8 so he'll obviously be higher in the table.

The tiebreakers should be pretty rare, but they can happen for example with the following two players: 5x 1-2 + 2x 2-0 and 4x 2-1 + 1x 1-2 + 2x 0-2. In this example both players have a total of 9-10 score, at which point the tiebreaker rules start to apply, ie. the second player will be given advantage since he has more set wins (unless the first player has won head-to-head match vs the second player).

We know that with taking individual games as a criteria for determining your place in the standings table there is a possibility of some edge-cases like a player who hasn't won a single bo3 match (7x 1-2 score) is treated as a better player against someone who has won two bo3 matches (2x 2-0 + 5x 0-2). But I think this is the correct way to look at it, and it's exactly how it is in a proper Ladder.

Btw, thank you for bringing this up to our attention. This was definitely an oversight by us, as we didn't write this down clearly in our original post.