It keeps banning me from the Afreeca stream when I'm trying to type inane, simple, questions (toned it down from something long to short, nothing changed)
On January 11 2017 17:56 paralleluniverse wrote: Why are the start times always wrong? This is off by 1 hours (from the start not the talk show). The Saturday post was off by 1.5 hours.
On January 11 2017 17:56 paralleluniverse wrote: Why are the start times always wrong? This is off by 1 hours (from the start not the talk show). The Saturday post was off by 1.5 hours.
both start times are correct.
"Wednesday, Jan 11 7:30pm AAEST (GMT+10:00)". It's 8:30.
On January 11 2017 17:56 paralleluniverse wrote: Why are the start times always wrong? This is off by 1 hours (from the start not the talk show). The Saturday post was off by 1.5 hours.
both start times are correct.
"Wednesday, Jan 11 7:30pm AAEST (GMT+10:00)". It's 8:30.
how is it OP's fault that you can't set up your clock on TL
blink stalkers on yeonsu... yeah there's nothing 'good' about that
oh it was amazing though, Flash had the game won and then decided to lose it no reason
it wasn't exactly his fault. at that time it was extremely hard to distinguish if he's going allin with the blinkstalkers or just blink pressure into third (which was also a very popular build).
On January 11 2017 17:56 paralleluniverse wrote: Why are the start times always wrong? This is off by 1 hours (from the start not the talk show). The Saturday post was off by 1.5 hours.
both start times are correct.
"Wednesday, Jan 11 7:30pm AAEST (GMT+10:00)". It's 8:30.
Must be an issue with TL's time conversion for your time zone, the CET and KST time are correct.
On January 11 2017 17:56 paralleluniverse wrote: Why are the start times always wrong? This is off by 1 hours (from the start not the talk show). The Saturday post was off by 1.5 hours.
both start times are correct.
"Wednesday, Jan 11 7:30pm AAEST (GMT+10:00)". It's 8:30.
that's a problem on your side, the timecode is proper in the post (1830 KST)
On January 11 2017 17:56 paralleluniverse wrote: Why are the start times always wrong? This is off by 1 hours (from the start not the talk show). The Saturday post was off by 1.5 hours.
both start times are correct.
"Wednesday, Jan 11 7:30pm AAEST (GMT+10:00)". It's 8:30.
that's a problem on your side, the timecode is proper in the post (1830 KST)
On January 11 2017 19:19 FrostedMiniWheats wrote: Maybe Curious upsets too, he's had some great ZvZ in the past >.>
Wouldn't surprise me one bit tbh, I almost LB'd soO and Curious but ended up LBing with the heart, soO and sOs
i hope they win, i'm at 11th which is probably the highest i've ever been on sc2 liquibet (i was third in the middle of bw season once and i didn't know what i was doing but i finished poorly)
Great archon Tastosis make me forget about the freezing temperature at my work place. I might freeze to death, but I will die happy. And watching soOjwa
Anyone knows how sOs can keep motivating himself to play? I mean after all these crazy earnings and probably zero expenses how do you motivate yourself to keep playing at the highest level?
On January 11 2017 20:30 sharkie wrote: Anyone knows how sOs can keep motivating himself to play? I mean after all these crazy earnings and probably zero expenses how do you motivate yourself to keep playing at the highest level?
On January 11 2017 20:30 sharkie wrote: Anyone knows how sOs can keep motivating himself to play? I mean after all these crazy earnings and probably zero expenses how do you motivate yourself to keep playing at the highest level?
Not having money be the only thing to motivate you?
On January 11 2017 20:30 sharkie wrote: Anyone knows how sOs can keep motivating himself to play? I mean after all these crazy earnings and probably zero expenses how do you motivate yourself to keep playing at the highest level?
Not having money be the only thing to motivate you?
He could just amove carriers vs zerg, fits v well into his playstyle tbh
sOs makes it look so easy on his stream... I don't understand. It's not like he's playing people who are incredibly weaker than him, he shouldn't struggle this hard in Ro32.
On January 11 2017 21:37 KingofdaHipHop wrote: speaking of reaver drops why didn't blizzard bring back reavers man instead of giving them two new units, they brought back lurkers afterall
Pride or something. But tbh, reavers would be hard to balance in sc2 because of the pathing
After sOs lost the misrallied immortal and the warp prism with the disruptor in game 2 I thought for sure he was dead. He had no 3rd either. Billowy really choked that game away.
On January 11 2017 21:51 Philozovic wrote: I really don't understand all that hate against extended series
what makes you think I hate it?
Wait, extended series is what we have here? I thought it was the MLG version that was called that.
It isn't but it's clear what Philozovic meant
No I meant back in the MLG days extended series were hated as F. But I personaly hate GSL format a lot more
The GSL format is fine. Just think about it as two seperate bo3 series. You also wouldn't complain about Innovation advancing over Byul in the next group even though their lifetime record is in favor of Byul by 6 maps
On January 11 2017 21:51 Philozovic wrote: I really don't understand all that hate against extended series
what makes you think I hate it?
Wait, extended series is what we have here? I thought it was the MLG version that was called that.
It isn't but it's clear what Philozovic meant
No I meant back in the MLG days extended series were hated as F. But I personaly hate GSL format a lot more
The GSL format is fine. Just think about it as two seperate bo3 series. You also wouldn't complain about Innovation advancing over Byul in the next group even though their lifetime record is in favor of Byul by 6 maps
If Inno loses 3-2 to Byul but advances I will be glad obv but it still won't be fair. I also don't like bo3. I hate everything
On January 11 2017 22:28 The_Red_Viper wrote: The GSL format is fine. Just think about it as two seperate bo3 series. You also wouldn't complain about Innovation advancing over Byul in the next group even though their lifetime record is in favor of Byul by 6 maps
Those are entirely different things. If Innovation 4-0's his group and someone tries to argue it's unfair he got to advance over ByuL after 2-0'ing him because he has a losing record historically, you tell him "You're an idiot. The better player on that day advanced." because his complaint isn't warranted.
But when Billowy goes 3-2 vs sOs and sOs gets to advance because that's how the groups work, some people will ask themselves the question "So are we sure the better player advanced here?", and that question isn't unwarranted.
On January 11 2017 21:51 Philozovic wrote: I really don't understand all that hate against extended series
what makes you think I hate it?
Wait, extended series is what we have here? I thought it was the MLG version that was called that.
It isn't but it's clear what Philozovic meant
No I meant back in the MLG days extended series were hated as F. But I personaly hate GSL format a lot more
The GSL format is fine. Just think about it as two seperate bo3 series. You also wouldn't complain about Innovation advancing over Byul in the next group even though their lifetime record is in favor of Byul by 6 maps
Come on, that is a horrible comparison... People can surely be upset if their players wins 3-2 maps but loses the day.
Well SoS had to win against Curious (and Billowy to loose against soO) in order for this situation to happen, they didn't simply play 2 BO3 (SoS vs Billowy) in a row
Ok it's not the best comparison because one result is strictly at the same day and the other probably not, it's still similar though. It's seperate boX series and every boX decides something. It doesn't matter how many maps you won/lost in total, just like it doesn't matter when you play a different boX series a day after that. The only problem with the GSL system is that you can get unlucky facing the same opponent a second time (like let's say sOs is a beast but his one kryptonite is billowy, that would have been incredibly unfair for him as well) So yeah people will always find potential flaws in a system, i would argue the flaw i just presented is a bigger one than going 3-2 and not advancing though
On January 11 2017 22:52 VHbb wrote: Well SoS had to win against Curious (and Billowy to loose against soO) in order for this situation to happen, they didn't simply play 2 BO3 (SoS vs Billowy) in a row
Curious who did literally nothing during all LoTV and qualify by winning a single BO3 against Bunny I'm not particulary mad I just think this format is bad
On January 11 2017 22:57 The_Red_Viper wrote: Ok it's not the best comparison because one result is strictly at the same day and the other probably not, it's still similar though. It's seperate boX series and every boX decides something. It doesn't matter how many maps you won/lost in total, just like it doesn't matter when you play a different boX series a day after that. The only problem with the GSL system is that you can get unlucky facing the same opponent a second time (like let's say sOs is a beast but his one kryptonite is billowy, that would have been incredibly unfair for him as well) So yeah people will always find potential flaws in a system, i would argue the flaw i just presented is a bigger one than going 3-2 and not advancing though
How is that a flaw in the system? How is it even anything close to unfair? If Billowy was sOs' one kryptonite, it's up to sOs to work on that problem, it's not the system's job to protect him from the evil Soulkey Toss (). It's just unfortunate, but I'd never see that as some sort of major flaw. It's also kind of unavoidable with double elimination systems.
Billowy played very well yesterday against such protoss as herO and Classic. He showed us a great defense. I thought he could qualify but sadly he failed Feel sorry to him cause i think he practiced hard for this tournament.
Anyway congratz to sOs & soO 2 of my favourite players.
On January 11 2017 23:21 i-MajiN wrote: Billowy played very well yesterday against such protoss as herO and Classic. He showed us a great defense. I thought he could qualify but sadly he failed Feel sorry to him cause i think he practiced hard for this tournament.
Anyway congratz to sOs & soO 2 of my favourite players.
Small online tournaments and big offline tournaments are two different worlds. Offline experience is not something that a rookie player can gain quickly and this leads to the result today. However, if sOs keep playing PvP like this, he will drop out Ro.16, soO's ZvP is not very solid today either.
On January 11 2017 23:21 i-MajiN wrote: Billowy played very well yesterday against such protoss as herO and Classic. He showed us a great defense. I thought he could qualify but sadly he failed Feel sorry to him cause i think he practiced hard for this tournament.
Anyway congratz to sOs & soO 2 of my favourite players.
Small online tournaments and big offline tournaments are two different worlds. Offline experience is not something that a rookie player can gain quickly and this leads to the result today. However, if sOs keep playing PvP like this, he will drop out Ro.16, soO's ZvP is not very solid today either.
Protoss players keep telling me that there won't be many of them left after the Ro32 so maybe sOs won't have to worry.
On January 11 2017 22:57 The_Red_Viper wrote: Ok it's not the best comparison because one result is strictly at the same day and the other probably not, it's still similar though. It's seperate boX series and every boX decides something. It doesn't matter how many maps you won/lost in total, just like it doesn't matter when you play a different boX series a day after that. The only problem with the GSL system is that you can get unlucky facing the same opponent a second time (like let's say sOs is a beast but his one kryptonite is billowy, that would have been incredibly unfair for him as well) So yeah people will always find potential flaws in a system, i would argue the flaw i just presented is a bigger one than going 3-2 and not advancing though
How is that a flaw in the system? How is it even anything close to unfair? If Billowy was sOs' one kryptonite, it's up to sOs to work on that problem, it's not the system's job to protect him from the evil Soulkey Toss (). It's just unfortunate, but I'd never see that as some sort of major flaw. It's also kind of unavoidable with double elimination systems.
I mean I guess round robin might be fairer.
I am simply saying that double elim groups are incredibly "bracket luck" dependant. Starting matchups shape the whole group and if you are somewhat unlucky you don't advance simply because you have to play your worst matchup two times even though you are a god in the other two. Round robin is better in that way, yes. Even though it has obviously its own problems. I still prefer round robin.
Also for people who look at mapscore as the main argument, sOs had a total of 4-3 and Billowy 4-4. The better player advanced today
On January 11 2017 23:21 i-MajiN wrote: Billowy played very well yesterday against such protoss as herO and Classic. He showed us a great defense. I thought he could qualify but sadly he failed Feel sorry to him cause i think he practiced hard for this tournament.
Anyway congratz to sOs & soO 2 of my favourite players.
Small online tournaments and big offline tournaments are two different worlds. Offline experience is not something that a rookie player can gain quickly and this leads to the result today. However, if sOs keep playing PvP like this, he will drop out Ro.16, soO's ZvP is not very solid today either.
Protoss players keep telling me that there won't be many of them left after the Ro32 so maybe sOs won't have to worry.
I was about to say this...But yeah, maybe he should worry about his PvT rather than PvP. Hopefully there will be another Protoss survivor between Classic and Stats.
On January 11 2017 23:21 i-MajiN wrote: Billowy played very well yesterday against such protoss as herO and Classic. He showed us a great defense. I thought he could qualify but sadly he failed Feel sorry to him cause i think he practiced hard for this tournament.
Anyway congratz to sOs & soO 2 of my favourite players.
Small online tournaments and big offline tournaments are two different worlds. Offline experience is not something that a rookie player can gain quickly and this leads to the result today. However, if sOs keep playing PvP like this, he will drop out Ro.16, soO's ZvP is not very solid today either.
Protoss players keep telling me that there won't be many of them left after the Ro32 so maybe sOs won't have to worry.
I was about to say this...But yeah, maybe he should worry about his PvT rather than PvP. Hopefully there will be another Protoss survivor between Classic and Stats.
I'm pretty scared for Stats atm. Stuck in a group with 2 Terrans (one of which is ByuN) with a ladder PvT win rate less than 50% and a huge mental block in the match-up.
On January 11 2017 22:48 Elentos wrote: But when Billowy goes 3-2 vs sOs and sOs gets to advance because that's how the groups work, some people will ask themselves the question "So are we sure the better player advanced here?", and that question isn't unwarranted.
The question is unwarranted for a different reason. Tournaments have never been about finding out who the better player is, tournaments are about who is winning the games.
On January 11 2017 23:21 i-MajiN wrote: Billowy played very well yesterday against such protoss as herO and Classic. He showed us a great defense. I thought he could qualify but sadly he failed Feel sorry to him cause i think he practiced hard for this tournament.
Anyway congratz to sOs & soO 2 of my favourite players.
Small online tournaments and big offline tournaments are two different worlds. Offline experience is not something that a rookie player can gain quickly and this leads to the result today. However, if sOs keep playing PvP like this, he will drop out Ro.16, soO's ZvP is not very solid today either.
Protoss players keep telling me that there won't be many of them left after the Ro32 so maybe sOs won't have to worry.
I was about to say this...But yeah, maybe he should worry about his PvT rather than PvP. Hopefully there will be another Protoss survivor between Classic and Stats.
I'm pretty scared for Stats atm. Stuck in a group with 2 Terrans (one of which is ByuN) with a ladder PvT win rate less than 50% and a huge mental block in the match-up.
I'm assuming he will lose to Byun, but the important question is, can he beat Ryung or not?
On January 11 2017 22:48 Elentos wrote: But when Billowy goes 3-2 vs sOs and sOs gets to advance because that's how the groups work, some people will ask themselves the question "So are we sure the better player advanced here?", and that question isn't unwarranted.
The question is unwarranted for a different reason. Tournaments have never been about finding out who the better player is, tournaments are about who is winning the games.
If tournaments are solely about who is winning, why is there a 2nd chance for the players who didn't (double elimination)? Why give the discussion about your tournament system any basis? If you only care who wins you should use round robin.
On January 11 2017 22:48 Elentos wrote: But when Billowy goes 3-2 vs sOs and sOs gets to advance because that's how the groups work, some people will ask themselves the question "So are we sure the better player advanced here?", and that question isn't unwarranted.
The question is unwarranted for a different reason. Tournaments have never been about finding out who the better player is, tournaments are about who is winning the games.
If tournaments are solely about who is winning, why is there a 2nd chance for the players who didn't (double elimination)? Why give the discussion about your tournament system any basis? If you only care who wins you should use round robin.
Cause this system allows you to play more games, which makes for better storylines and better broadcasts than just playing one game and being done with it.
On January 11 2017 22:48 Elentos wrote: But when Billowy goes 3-2 vs sOs and sOs gets to advance because that's how the groups work, some people will ask themselves the question "So are we sure the better player advanced here?", and that question isn't unwarranted.
The question is unwarranted for a different reason. Tournaments have never been about finding out who the better player is, tournaments are about who is winning the games.
If tournaments are solely about who is winning, why is there a 2nd chance for the players who didn't (double elimination)? Why give the discussion about your tournament system any basis? If you only care who wins you should use round robin.
Cause this system allows you to play more games, which makes for better storylines and better broadcasts than just playing one game and being done with it.
The round robin doesn't have to be best of 1. If you have 4 people and make everyone play 2 games against everyone else you have 12 games for a 4 player group, a regular GSL group is between 10 and 15 games. So you could make it clear who wins and loses and fill your broadcast time.
And don't even get me started on the whole storyline thing.
Point is, they could use something different if they wanted to but they don't. So every time something like today occurs they'll get the same questions from 6 years ago.
On January 11 2017 22:48 Elentos wrote: But when Billowy goes 3-2 vs sOs and sOs gets to advance because that's how the groups work, some people will ask themselves the question "So are we sure the better player advanced here?", and that question isn't unwarranted.
The question is unwarranted for a different reason. Tournaments have never been about finding out who the better player is, tournaments are about who is winning the games.
If tournaments are solely about who is winning, why is there a 2nd chance for the players who didn't (double elimination)? Why give the discussion about your tournament system any basis? If you only care who wins you should use round robin.
Cause this system allows you to play more games, which makes for better storylines and better broadcasts than just playing one game and being done with it.
The round robin doesn't have to be best of 1. If you have 4 people and make everyone play 2 games against everyone else you have 12 games for a 4 player group, a regular GSL group is between 10 and 15 games. So you could make it clear who wins and loses and fill your broadcast time.
And don't even get me started on the whole storyline thing.
Point is, they could use something different if they wanted to but they don't. So every time something like today occurs they'll get the same questions from 6 years ago.
Sry for some reason when you said round robin I read single elimination.
Round robin and double elim are equivalent for players if you look at it objectively, so whichever you prefer is your personal taste.
Some nice games. Outcome of Billowy vs soO was obvious, 1 game won due to build orders and the others showcased soO's simple superiority. I truly dislike Tastosis casting. They have only a mediocre insight into gameplay, are extremely nerdy and go off on geek tangents that make me have to mute the cast at stages- 3minutes of a cast devoted to a cockroach reference. Truly an over-rated casting team. Why are they the only one or do we get to see wolf and khaldor (pretty sure he's moved on)? Much prefered.
On January 12 2017 00:32 MyTHicaL wrote: Some nice games. Outcome of Billowy vs soO was obvious, 1 game won due to build orders and the others showcased soO's simple superiority.
soO was 1 properly placed forcefield away from losing 0-2 to Billowy
On January 11 2017 22:48 Elentos wrote: But when Billowy goes 3-2 vs sOs and sOs gets to advance because that's how the groups work, some people will ask themselves the question "So are we sure the better player advanced here?", and that question isn't unwarranted.
The question is unwarranted for a different reason. Tournaments have never been about finding out who the better player is, tournaments are about who is winning the games.
If tournaments are solely about who is winning, why is there a 2nd chance for the players who didn't (double elimination)? Why give the discussion about your tournament system any basis? If you only care who wins you should use round robin.
Cause this system allows you to play more games, which makes for better storylines and better broadcasts than just playing one game and being done with it.
The round robin doesn't have to be best of 1. If you have 4 people and make everyone play 2 games against everyone else you have 12 games for a 4 player group, a regular GSL group is between 10 and 15 games. So you could make it clear who wins and loses and fill your broadcast time.
And don't even get me started on the whole storyline thing.
Point is, they could use something different if they wanted to but they don't. So every time something like today occurs they'll get the same questions from 6 years ago.
Sry for some reason when you said round robin I read single elimination.
Round robin and double elim are equivalent for players if you look at it objectively, so whichever you prefer is your personal taste.
Tbf gsl format is much more predictable in terms of production. What SSL tried to do was cool and all but could have been a very short day or a long one. Also, it's not like we're giving sOs a second chance. sOs won against Curious and Billowy lost against soO. You could say it may be unfair to Billowy cuz he played better than sOs overall, but this format also prevents less skilled players getting through the stage just bc they managed to build two smart cheeses in few weeks.
Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
On January 11 2017 22:48 Elentos wrote: But when Billowy goes 3-2 vs sOs and sOs gets to advance because that's how the groups work, some people will ask themselves the question "So are we sure the better player advanced here?", and that question isn't unwarranted.
The question is unwarranted for a different reason. Tournaments have never been about finding out who the better player is, tournaments are about who is winning the games.
If tournaments are solely about who is winning, why is there a 2nd chance for the players who didn't (double elimination)? Why give the discussion about your tournament system any basis? If you only care who wins you should use round robin.
Cause this system allows you to play more games, which makes for better storylines and better broadcasts than just playing one game and being done with it.
The round robin doesn't have to be best of 1. If you have 4 people and make everyone play 2 games against everyone else you have 12 games for a 4 player group, a regular GSL group is between 10 and 15 games. So you could make it clear who wins and loses and fill your broadcast time.
And don't even get me started on the whole storyline thing.
Point is, they could use something different if they wanted to but they don't. So every time something like today occurs they'll get the same questions from 6 years ago.
Sry for some reason when you said round robin I read single elimination.
Round robin and double elim are equivalent for players if you look at it objectively, so whichever you prefer is your personal taste.
Tbf gsl format is much more predictable in terms of production. What SSL tried to do was cool and all but could have been a very short day or a long one.
I think SSL kinda scheduled it so it wouldn't take less than 8 hours and I think the casters were all ready for the days to take 12 hours.
On January 11 2017 23:21 i-MajiN wrote: Billowy played very well yesterday against such protoss as herO and Classic. He showed us a great defense. I thought he could qualify but sadly he failed Feel sorry to him cause i think he practiced hard for this tournament.
Anyway congratz to sOs & soO 2 of my favourite players.
Small online tournaments and big offline tournaments are two different worlds. Offline experience is not something that a rookie player can gain quickly and this leads to the result today. However, if sOs keep playing PvP like this, he will drop out Ro.16, soO's ZvP is not very solid today either.
Protoss players keep telling me that there won't be many of them left after the Ro32 so maybe sOs won't have to worry.
I was about to say this...But yeah, maybe he should worry about his PvT rather than PvP. Hopefully there will be another Protoss survivor between Classic and Stats.
I'm pretty scared for Stats atm. Stuck in a group with 2 Terrans (one of which is ByuN) with a ladder PvT win rate less than 50% and a huge mental block in the match-up.
On January 12 2017 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
It's equivalent to double elim in that it's something that really really doesn't matter and yet is presented as a huge hindrance, much like losing to someone you beat before gets the same treatment in double elim.
On January 12 2017 00:32 MyTHicaL wrote: Some nice games. Outcome of Billowy vs soO was obvious, 1 game won due to build orders and the others showcased soO's simple superiority.
soO was 1 properly placed forcefield away from losing 0-2 to Billowy
Not at all.. He had full saturation 5 bases. He would've eventually cleaned up or pushed billowy back; and then simply would've won at a later stage. I also don't know if it was just one forcefield.. The line of them was bad but there wasn't only one hole!
On January 12 2017 00:32 MyTHicaL wrote: Some nice games. Outcome of Billowy vs soO was obvious, 1 game won due to build orders and the others showcased soO's simple superiority.
soO was 1 properly placed forcefield away from losing 0-2 to Billowy
Not at all.. He had full saturation 5 bases. He would've eventually cleaned up or pushed billowy back; and then simply would've won at a later stage. I also don't know if it was just one forcefield.. The line of them was bad but there wasn't only one hole!
It was one. He misplaced the forcefield on the ramp which allowed banelings to destroy the core of his army from behind. If Billowy correctly places that forcefield, he takes out most of soO's army, which soO (with no bank to speak off) can't replenish fast enough to save himself from losing most of his infrastructure and some of the units he would be remaking.
On January 12 2017 00:46 Nebuchad wrote: You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
Is that even mathematically possible for most round robin groups? I think you could end up in a tie being forced to play a tie breaker but I'm not sure how the group would have to look so you're just flat out eliminated despite having won most of your matches.
On January 12 2017 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
It's equivalent to double elim in that it's something that really really doesn't matter and yet is presented as a huge hindrance, much like losing to someone you beat before gets the same treatment in double elim.
What format are we talking about right now? Bo3 round robin?
I mean you already implied it never matters because you won't find the best player or something. I am not quite sure on what lvl we are arguing here though. Would we find the best player if we had a big round robin including all players? Or do you imply that competition in itself isn't able to find "the best" ?
On January 12 2017 00:46 Nebuchad wrote: You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
Is that even mathematically possible for most round robin groups? I think you could end up in a tie being forced to play a tie breaker but I'm not sure how the group would have to look so you're just flat out eliminated despite having won most of your matches.
I guess he means map wins? But even there you need like bo5 or something
On January 12 2017 01:00 NinjaToss wrote: any recommended games today?
second series between sOs and Billowy was fun. sOs second game vs Curious wasn't anything special, but was kinda wonky considering the opening and how far Curious was. Maybe Billowy vs soO, can't remember much other than that one missed forcefield.
On January 12 2017 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
It's equivalent to double elim in that it's something that really really doesn't matter and yet is presented as a huge hindrance, much like losing to someone you beat before gets the same treatment in double elim.
What format are we talking about right now? Bo3 round robin?
I mean you already implied it never matters because you won't find the best player or something. I am not quite sure on what lvl we are arguing here though. Would we find the best player if we had a big round robin including all players? Or do you imply that competition in itself isn't able to find "the best" ?
"The best player" is basically people who are salty that their guy didn't win and are trying to diminish the accomplishment of people who beat him. It's an idea with no merit.
We are having this conversation because I misread Elentos' post as saying that we might as well have single elim then, which I disagree with cause single elim is a much weaker format. Round robin and double elim have the same strengths and weaknesses.
And no I didn't mean map wins, I meant 2-1 2-1 2-1 0-3, thought that was obvious
On January 12 2017 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
It's equivalent to double elim in that it's something that really really doesn't matter and yet is presented as a huge hindrance, much like losing to someone you beat before gets the same treatment in double elim.
What format are we talking about right now? Bo3 round robin?
I mean you already implied it never matters because you won't find the best player or something. I am not quite sure on what lvl we are arguing here though. Would we find the best player if we had a big round robin including all players? Or do you imply that competition in itself isn't able to find "the best" ?
"The best player" is basically people who are salty that their guy didn't win and are trying to diminish the accomplishments of people who beat him. It's an idea with no merit.
We are having this conversation because I misread Elentos' post as saying that we might as well have single elim then, which I disagree with cause single elim is a much weaker format. Round robin and double elim have the same strengths and weaknesses.
And no I didn't mean map wins, I meant 2-1 2-1 2-1 0-3, thought that was obvious
2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 0-3 forces tie breaker matches though, in that situation you won't simply get eliminated despite winning more than half your matches. I can see ties and potential tie breakers being problematic for organizers, but I thought you were saying it's possible to flatout be eliminated despite winning the majority of your matches. So I guess it was a misunderstanding.
On January 12 2017 01:46 Ej_ wrote: who cares about what is fair and what is not, what matters is that our liquibets were saved
I'm surprised after 2 groups (with decently obvious outcomes) we have people with 2 or less points. Is that just a case of "This will make me look really smart when it happens or really stupid when it doesn't?"-predictions to get a possible lead?
On January 12 2017 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
It's equivalent to double elim in that it's something that really really doesn't matter and yet is presented as a huge hindrance, much like losing to someone you beat before gets the same treatment in double elim.
What format are we talking about right now? Bo3 round robin?
I mean you already implied it never matters because you won't find the best player or something. I am not quite sure on what lvl we are arguing here though. Would we find the best player if we had a big round robin including all players? Or do you imply that competition in itself isn't able to find "the best" ?
"The best player" is basically people who are salty that their guy didn't win and are trying to diminish the accomplishments of people who beat him. It's an idea with no merit.
We are having this conversation because I misread Elentos' post as saying that we might as well have single elim then, which I disagree with cause single elim is a much weaker format. Round robin and double elim have the same strengths and weaknesses.
And no I didn't mean map wins, I meant 2-1 2-1 2-1 0-3, thought that was obvious
2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 0-3 forces tie breaker matches though, in that situation you won't simply get eliminated despite winning more than half your matches. I can see ties and potential tie breakers being problematic for organizers, but I thought you were saying it's possible to flatout be eliminated despite winning the majority of your matches. So I guess it was a misunderstanding.
You said it would lead to the same amount of matches as this format so I assumed Bo3
On January 12 2017 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
It's equivalent to double elim in that it's something that really really doesn't matter and yet is presented as a huge hindrance, much like losing to someone you beat before gets the same treatment in double elim.
What format are we talking about right now? Bo3 round robin?
I mean you already implied it never matters because you won't find the best player or something. I am not quite sure on what lvl we are arguing here though. Would we find the best player if we had a big round robin including all players? Or do you imply that competition in itself isn't able to find "the best" ?
"The best player" is basically people who are salty that their guy didn't win and are trying to diminish the accomplishment of people who beat him. It's an idea with no merit.
We are having this conversation because I misread Elentos' post as saying that we might as well have single elim then, which I disagree with cause single elim is a much weaker format. Round robin and double elim have the same strengths and weaknesses.
And no I didn't mean map wins, I meant 2-1 2-1 2-1 0-3, thought that was obvious
"The best player" is the player who would win most games if he played against every other player in the competition i guess.
As Elentos already said, if we are simply talking matches your comment seems to be wrong
On January 12 2017 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
It's equivalent to double elim in that it's something that really really doesn't matter and yet is presented as a huge hindrance, much like losing to someone you beat before gets the same treatment in double elim.
What format are we talking about right now? Bo3 round robin?
I mean you already implied it never matters because you won't find the best player or something. I am not quite sure on what lvl we are arguing here though. Would we find the best player if we had a big round robin including all players? Or do you imply that competition in itself isn't able to find "the best" ?
"The best player" is basically people who are salty that their guy didn't win and are trying to diminish the accomplishment of people who beat him. It's an idea with no merit.
We are having this conversation because I misread Elentos' post as saying that we might as well have single elim then, which I disagree with cause single elim is a much weaker format. Round robin and double elim have the same strengths and weaknesses.
And no I didn't mean map wins, I meant 2-1 2-1 2-1 0-3, thought that was obvious
"The best player" is the player who would win most games if he played against every other player in the competition i guess.
As Elentos already said, if we are simply talking matches your comment seems to be wrong
Over a long period or a short one? Cuz sOs won't be high on the list if it's over a short period of time
It seemed like Billowy just didn't want to put some defence in his mineral line. One dt keep coming in and screwing his mining. seemed like tastless wanted to scream build a cannon so many bases getting rekt to the same thing with Billowy not doing much to stop the harass
@ everyone who is blaming sOs advancement on tournament structure:
billowy literally lost two games because he didnt use photon cannons vs DT's
he knows better he just tried to get an edge by not building them, saving the minerals thinking "ok, hes gonna stop making these"
if he wins that game because he starts an extra nexus with those minerals or gets an extra prism, then he looks smart. he worked so hard to get to that point, and then he just risk it all like that, assuming sOs is done with DT's?
i dont want that guy in ro16. well i mean, i do. but id rather have the guy who keeps making DT's because you are not making cannons