|
The GSL group format is great. Shorter than a round robin and easy to understand. However, the one thing that seems a little flawed is the fifth series between the loser of the Winners Match and the winner of the Losers Match. What happens when two players who have already met in a previous series meet again? As of right now, their previous score is ignored and the second series starts fresh at 0-0. I believe that this is unfair to the better player of the two and an extended series à la MLG should be implemented.
Let's have a look at a few such instances from the past two seasons where two players who had played each other before did meet. The scores listed are that of their first series, second series, and total score for the night. The advancing player is listed on the left. The better player is assumed to be the winner of the final score.
Highlighted in blue are nights where the better player came within a game of not advancing to the next round.
Highlighted in green are nights where the players were tied on final score, but only one of them advanced to the next round.
Highlighted in red are nights where the better player did not advance to the next round.
GSL 2012 Season 1 (round-of-32 + round-of-16):
Mvp 2-0 Lucky Mvp 2-1 Lucky Mvp 4-1 Lucky
GuMiho 2-0 Mvp GuMiho 2-1 Mvp GuMiho 4-1 Mvp
MMA 2-1 Oz MMA 2-1 Oz MMA 4-2 Oz
PartinG 2-1 Jjakji PartinG 2-0 Jjakji PartinG 4-1 Jjakji
Genius 0-2 MarineKing Genius 2-1 MarineKing Genius 2-3 MarineKing
GSL 2012 Season 2 (round-of-32):
TaeJa 1-2 Jjakji TaeJa 2-0 Jjakji TaeJa 3-2 Jjakji
HerO 2-1 Curious HerO 2-0 Curious HerO 4-1 Curious
Mvp 2-0 Ryung Mvp 0-2 Ryung Mvp 2-2 Ryung
Oz 0-2 Fin Oz 2-0 Fin Oz 2-2 Fin
Blue: For example, it's unfair to Mvp (in Mvp 4-1 Lucky) that he comes within a game of elimination even though, by final score, he is decidedly better than Lucky.
Green: By final score, these players were tied at the end and to be fair to both players, additional games should be played until the better player is determined.
Red: The worst one of them all. MarineKing, in total, was actually 3-2 over Genius in his round-of-16 group of death which also had DongRaeGu and NesTea. Yet, it was Genius who advanced, eventually all the way to the finals.
It is proposed that an extended series rule be implemented. Players who have met before should play a best-of-seven series starting with the results from their previous meeting.
Thoughts?
Poll: Extended series in GSL groups?No, the system is fair as it is (666) 82% No, the system is unfair but extended series is not the solution (76) 9% Yes, it would be more fair to the players (66) 8% 808 total votes Your vote: Extended series in GSL groups? (Vote): Yes, it would be more fair to the players (Vote): No, the system is fair as it is (Vote): No, the system is unfair but extended series is not the solution
Bazinga's example hits the nail right on the head.
On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content.
|
The players in the final set have both won and lost a game. Therefore they should start in the same position for the match. If one player is better like you assume he will probably win the set nonetheless. Making an extended series out of the rematch will almost give no chance to the loser of the first engagement.
I like round robin more, if all players take it serious even while being in a position they can´t advance, but to introduce a travesty like extended series is no alternative.
|
No, lets get rid off extended series in all tournaments. They completely defeat the purpose of double elimination.
|
I mistakenly voted for yes.
|
On April 14 2012 22:47 xCenasfu wrote: I mistakenly voted for yes. You're the guy!
|
Is it not an advantage already to know and feel that you have to defeat a player in a Bo3, who you defeated in a Bo3 earlier this day?
Extended series is a horrible thing. The system is fine as it is right now.
|
Defeating a player in a much more high-pressure scenario makes you the better player. You can't compare a win early in the competition with a win at the end. I really don't know why proponents of extended series think you can.
|
On April 14 2012 22:46 00Visor wrote: No, lets get rid off extended series in all tournaments. They completely defeat the purpose of double elimination.
Agree! I do not like extended series at all. A standard Bo7 of Bo5 is better than extended series.
|
At the end of the day... both players come into the 5th set.. 1-1 in the group... so it' fair despite their previous record... don't really like the idea of extended series... one thing i hate about MLG and... the recent IPL too...
|
It's fair as it is because the way that it's set up only allows them to meet when they are both 1-1 in sets. It would be unfair for one of the players to go into that down 2-0 when they've both lost 1 set already.
|
I much prefer RR, it's the best way of determining the best players. Everyone gets a chance to play everyone, and that can mean that more match-ups are tested. The problems with incentives can be overcome.
|
I agree with the posts above me, when you meet in the final match, you have won one game and you have lost one game, making the score 1-1. I also don't like the looking at set scores, because it gives too much room for things like cheeses and map balance to become in effect.
The only way I think an extended series works is in the final (because in a double elimination format, someone has not yet lost), but even there I don't really know how it should be implemented (maybe MLG has gotten it right, by automatically making it a best of 9).
|
|
What, no no no, extended series is the stupidest system ever invented and the current GSL format is the best one, why would you even consider something like this? The whole logic if using previous head-to-head results is ridiculous, the only thing you should go on is the current performance in this series alone, anything else is irrelevant.
|
There is no such thing as extended series in real sports so it shouldn't exist if e-sports is to be taken seriously. GSL is fine the way it is. Also, foreign tournaments really need to look at the way they structure their brackets because double elimination/winners advantage is the stupidest thing to watch, in the grand finals all the hype is deflated because you know only one player deserved to be there. The other player is at a disadvantage, rightfully so, but we could just remove the lower half and have a real "grand finals."
|
The better player didn't win ? If he doesn't win then he isn't the better player.
|
On April 14 2012 22:56 sjperera wrote: At the end of the day... both players come into the 5th set.. 1-1 in the group... so it' fair despite their previous record... don't really like the idea of extended series... one thing i hate about MLG and... the recent IPL too... What happened in the recent IPL that was extended series?
|
Extended series : Avenge the losses earlier and settle who is the better player amongst the two.
|
IPL was awful because all the games that mattered where in the losers half of the bracket, so when a player won/lost in the winners bracket, nobody cared. Then once that player lost we had to watch him play endless amounts of games to get to the finals, which made it so anticlimactic.
|
On April 14 2012 22:56 sjperera wrote: At the end of the day... both players come into the 5th set.. 1-1 in the group... so it' fair despite their previous record... don't really like the idea of extended series... one thing i hate about MLG and... the recent IPL too... IPL4 had no extended series, just normal double elimination which is totally fine. You can look it up http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/IGN_ProLeague_Season_4 In this case I would like it more as a Bo7 final with a 1-0 lead instead of 2 Bo5. But that wasn´t the question
Btw with looking at you post history: your keyboard seems to make 3 dots instead of 1 all the time, really wired.
|
If they added extended series that would be the first season of GSL I wouldn't buy. There's a reason nearly every MLG grand finals have been boring and onesided.
|
Extended series is shit. 'Winning' is measured by victories in Best of 3. Not number of matches played.
|
extended series is the worst idea ever and it's an insult to Mr. Chae's intelligence to even suggest implementing it for GSL
|
No, they should just change it to a normal group system:
Player A Player B Player C Player D
A - D B - C A - C B - D C - D A - B
everybody plays everybody once; easy and leads to precise results. And because there is a difference between getting 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th, there is no game that doesn't matter.
|
On April 14 2012 23:19 Micket wrote: Extended series is shit. 'Winning' is measured by victories in Best of 3. Not number of matches played.
oh is that the new definition nowadays?
|
On April 14 2012 23:25 Big J wrote: No, they should just change it to a normal group system:
Player A Player B Player C Player D
A - D B - C A - C B - D C - D A - B
everybody plays everybody once; easy and leads to precise results. And because there is a difference between getting 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th, there is no game that doesn't matter.
Precise results? Every tournament with normal groups leads to casters and fans spending half their time trying to calculate map scores and head to head records. I'd rather see more tournaments use the GSL system.
This whole post is based on the fundamental fallacy that beating someone in one series means you're 'better' than them. You had your advantage, they had to win an extra series to get to this match while you could afford to lose one.
There also shouldn't be a situation where the person who came out of the losers' match gets an advantage against one of the players in the winners' match but not the other, it's just stupid as we see at every MLG.
|
Koreans just believe that if you've beaten the guy once, you should be able to beat the guy again. The final score counts. That's why they have some showmatches where the first set is worth $50, the next is $100, so on and so forth.
|
There's nothing inherently more fair about extended series. Yes, MKP took one more map against Genius than Genius took from MKP, but on the other hand MKP lost to someone else whereas Genius beat someone else. No matter how you do it someone can always argue that the other guy "deserved" to advance. You can't base rules on fairness because it's completely subjective. The only thing you can do is be consistent with your rules.
In Tennis you can go 6-0, 6-7, 6-7 and lose. Is that unfair because you won more games but still lost? Maybe, but the rules aren't about being fair, sports aren't fair. A game is a game, the score in the game doesn't matter. A set is a set and the score doesn't matter. Same thing in SC2, a map win is a win no matter if it was a double proxygate or a 40 min macro game, and a Bo3 win is a Bo3 win no matter if it's 2-1 or 2-0.
|
The idea that you can win the series by winning less games overall is not novel, just look at tennis.
You can win a tennis match 7-6, 1-6, 7-5 even though the score on games is 15-17 against you.
There have already been huge polls and debate about extended series in other threads, and the result of that is that neither side will change their opinions, but overall the people opposing extended series outnumber those who support it.
Edit: looks like the guy right above me beat me to the punch
|
On April 14 2012 23:25 Big J wrote: No, they should just change it to a normal group system:
Player A Player B Player C Player D
A - D B - C A - C B - D C - D A - B
everybody plays everybody once; easy and leads to precise results. And because there is a difference between getting 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th, there is no game that doesn't matter.
Nope, wrong. What you are looking for is (I believe) "round-robin". And there are a ton of cases where games does't matter for some players (A), leading to another player (B) advancing or not depending of the effort the player (A) is willing to put in his insignificant (for him) game.
|
It makes more sense to use extended series in the GSL than in MLG.
|
On April 14 2012 23:39 Koshi wrote: It makes more sense to use extended series in the GSL than in MLG. True.
...but it would still be fucking terrible >.>
|
On April 14 2012 23:37 Bidj wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 23:25 Big J wrote: No, they should just change it to a normal group system:
Player A Player B Player C Player D
A - D B - C A - C B - D C - D A - B
everybody plays everybody once; easy and leads to precise results. And because there is a difference between getting 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th, there is no game that doesn't matter. Nope, wrong. What you are looking for is (I believe) "round-robin". And there are a ton of cases where games does't matter for some players (A), leading to another player (B) advancing or not depending of the effort the player (A) is willing to put in his insignificant (for him) game.
In the GSL there is a difference between 3rd or 4th place, so there is nearly always something worth playing for.
Not to mention that the basic rules of sportmanship apply to any game in the group (so not playing ones best should not happen) and as far as I know, this kind of system is the most farspread among all 4player groups in the world of sport. The current GSL system already has the flaw that a 0-2 player doesn't get to play a 3rd game and possibly secure a 3rd place, similarily for a 2-0 player that can't get 2nd or even 3rd anymore, but is already given first place.
|
That was alot of text beeing a troll topic. Well played sir!
|
There is one point where the extended series is a good thing, and that is for a double elimination bracket for the grand final.
I do agree that the hype is less, and It also feels less epic than a GSL finals, BUT, double elimination ensures the best players are in the finals, and not that the best players eliminated eachother in the Ro8 or earlier.
The winner of winners finals should always get an advantage, as for how MLG works i would love if they did Bo9 with the player from winners bracket gets a 2-0 lead, regardless if they played before.
GSL is fine because both players are have lost 1 series, but I do prefer Round Robin.. only problem is when people already advanced or got knocked out they have no gain for themself, which I believe is fixed by adding a prize spot for every single spot in the group (IPL did this)
|
The GSL format is perfect as it is. Extended series lead to garbage, uninteresting games and round robin is not a viable alternative because playing 6 bo3's for every day of pool play would simply be too long. Tournaments need to be watchable from an entertainment perspective without having to sit in front of your TV for 8 hours.
|
Why are you bringing this up? We're trying to remove the extended series rule from at MLG, not introduce it other tournaments.
Or maybe this is a troll...well played sir, well played.
|
On April 15 2012 00:13 Derez wrote: The GSL format is perfect as it is. Extended series lead to garbage, uninteresting games and round robin is not a viable alternative because playing 6 bo3's for every day of pool play would simply be too long. Tournaments need to be watchable from an entertainment perspective without having to sit in front of your TV for 8 hours.
round robin are 6 bo3's. The system right now is 5 bo3's, I don't think this is the big problem.
|
The problem people overlook is that the reason this happens is the 'better player' lost to someone else, while the 'worse player' didn't. In that series, Genius also beat Nestea, while MarineKing lost to Dongraegu. With extended series, you overemphasize the first series. It doesn't matter if you win 2-1 or 2-0. A win is a win is a win. Genius beat Marineking once and lost to him once. That puts them at 1-1. The map score doesn't matter any more than the goal differential matters in a playoff hockey series. Genius also has a win against Nestea, while Marineking has a loss against Dongraegu. Genius is 2-1, Marineking is 1-2.
|
Extended series makes matches less exciting for the spectator because it makes the results of the series oftentimes a forgone conclusion. This should be the crux of the argument, not whether or not something is 'fair', which will differ for everyone.
|
On April 15 2012 00:18 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 00:13 Derez wrote: The GSL format is perfect as it is. Extended series lead to garbage, uninteresting games and round robin is not a viable alternative because playing 6 bo3's for every day of pool play would simply be too long. Tournaments need to be watchable from an entertainment perspective without having to sit in front of your TV for 8 hours. round robin are 6 bo3's. The system right now is 5 bo3's, I don't think this is the big problem. I don't think they would want round robin anymore, it can create meaningless matches for some players if they are already 0-2 in group. They did this in blizzard cup, and it backfired terribly.
|
What are you effing high?? Extended series is the stupidest thing to ever hit competitive play. This has to be a troll? You can't possibly think people think this is a good idea?? :p
If you lost a game previously, it's completely ridiculous that you get a huge disadvantage if you face that particular player again instead of facing any other player in the tournament. You always deserve to be where you are cause you have beaten the players nessecary to get there.
So you have to pray that that player gets knocked out otherwise you are screwed.
Besides, in competitive sc2 you might be better against a particular race / style / player, but that doesn't nessecarily mean that this player is better because he could be lacking against an other race / style / player.
|
|
I'm sorry, but have you ever seen ONE interview with ANY player after ANY MLG? Have you seen ANY LR thread after ANY MLG? The extended series rule is BAD, lets NOT make it spoil MORE then it already does. I do not approve this message. Sorry.
|
Extended series is the most retarded thing ever invented in tournament play. Im sorry but i cant see how anyone thinks its fair, granted youve won against someone already, but you have already gotten the benefits from that win by getting farther ahead in the tournament tree. If you look at the odds of how series go after one player leads by a game or even 2, they become so strongly onesided in favor of the player leading its ridiculous.
|
Extended series is ridiculous. Starcraft has allways been played in BOX series. Not playing for every single game means that players will prepare riskier builds for longer BOX series. If 2-1 is worse than 2-0 then players will play more conservatively and we will see less varied play which makes the game LESS FUN to watch.
|
Its double elimination. Its the best system.
|
My reaction to this could only properly be explained through a Futurama Fry meme, but let's just say that Extended Series has never, ever done anything good for esports; adding it to the highest level tournament in the world would be an embarrasment.
|
This is a bad idea. You are completely ignoring the other results of the guys in the group. If they are facing eachother again in the last game that means both of them have 1 win and 1 loss, so they are even. Thus a single, new Bo3 is the best way to decide who should advance.
|
Why does winning the first time mean you are the better player, who would needs more advantages later? Also if you actually are the definite better player you should be able to win a bo3 again, shouldn't you? With the logic of extended series you should be able to then ask for a best of X, it being infinity until you win more games, it is ridiculous..
|
SoCal, USA3955 Posts
GSL is fine the way it is.
Extended series is just another way to punish the loser when the two players meet again when they. I honestly don't see how this is really fair. It also just adds in more unnecessary games and time.
|
For me a traditional group stage would be better but this is also okay. But please no extendend series. It's the most stupid format in esport and there is a reason only MLG uses it.
|
No more extended series again, ever. Please.
|
They should make the GSL a round robin of 32 players - that will define the best player!
|
The most important thing that you're forgetting here is the hype, which extended series kills outright.
|
On April 14 2012 23:08 Lobo2me wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 22:56 sjperera wrote: At the end of the day... both players come into the 5th set.. 1-1 in the group... so it' fair despite their previous record... don't really like the idea of extended series... one thing i hate about MLG and... the recent IPL too... What happened in the recent IPL that was extended series? .... the finals?
|
I really hate extended series. I don't even like double elimination. I don't like anything where a match between two players has rules more complicated than, "win this BoX from a score of 0-0 and win the series".
|
On April 15 2012 01:10 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 23:08 Lobo2me wrote:On April 14 2012 22:56 sjperera wrote: At the end of the day... both players come into the 5th set.. 1-1 in the group... so it' fair despite their previous record... don't really like the idea of extended series... one thing i hate about MLG and... the recent IPL too... What happened in the recent IPL that was extended series? .... the finals? Double Elimination (2x BO5 Finals) =/= Extended Series
|
On April 15 2012 01:10 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 23:08 Lobo2me wrote:On April 14 2012 22:56 sjperera wrote: At the end of the day... both players come into the 5th set.. 1-1 in the group... so it' fair despite their previous record... don't really like the idea of extended series... one thing i hate about MLG and... the recent IPL too... What happened in the recent IPL that was extended series? .... the finals? It wasn't extended series. It was just the winner's advantage that comes with double elimination. You have to lose 2 series to be eliminated. The team coming from the winners bracket hasn't lost one to that point. If they lose the first series, each team has lost once, and they have to play a second series.
Extended series only happen when two teams have played earlier in the tournament.
|
On April 15 2012 01:10 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 23:08 Lobo2me wrote:On April 14 2012 22:56 sjperera wrote: At the end of the day... both players come into the 5th set.. 1-1 in the group... so it' fair despite their previous record... don't really like the idea of extended series... one thing i hate about MLG and... the recent IPL too... What happened in the recent IPL that was extended series? .... the finals? There was no extended series in the IPL final. IPL used a standard double elimination format, which means you have to lose 2 BoX to be knocked out. Extended series is something completely different.
Also, why would you want to ruin GSL's group format (which is by far the best one currently used in professional gaming) with extended series? :S
|
Really should be more like tennis where they don't count it as a win until you are two points (maps) ahead of your opponent.
|
On April 15 2012 01:13 Kovaz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 01:10 sc14s wrote:On April 14 2012 23:08 Lobo2me wrote:On April 14 2012 22:56 sjperera wrote: At the end of the day... both players come into the 5th set.. 1-1 in the group... so it' fair despite their previous record... don't really like the idea of extended series... one thing i hate about MLG and... the recent IPL too... What happened in the recent IPL that was extended series? .... the finals? It wasn't extended series. It was just the winner's advantage that comes with double elimination. You have to lose 2 series to be eliminated. The team coming from the winners bracket hasn't lost one to that point. If they lose the first series, each team has lost once, and they have to play a second series. Extended series only happen when two teams have played earlier in the tournament. eh well i have an issue with that as well same shit different name
|
I wonder if round robin would give some difficulties? For instance, it might be possible that all players end up with the same score and the have to play again? That would really become an issue I guess, it might never happen, but I don't think Gom would like that.
From a viewers perspective, I would love it though.
|
On April 15 2012 01:21 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 01:13 Kovaz wrote:On April 15 2012 01:10 sc14s wrote:On April 14 2012 23:08 Lobo2me wrote:On April 14 2012 22:56 sjperera wrote: At the end of the day... both players come into the 5th set.. 1-1 in the group... so it' fair despite their previous record... don't really like the idea of extended series... one thing i hate about MLG and... the recent IPL too... What happened in the recent IPL that was extended series? .... the finals? It wasn't extended series. It was just the winner's advantage that comes with double elimination. You have to lose 2 series to be eliminated. The team coming from the winners bracket hasn't lost one to that point. If they lose the first series, each team has lost once, and they have to play a second series. Extended series only happen when two teams have played earlier in the tournament. eh well i have an issue with that as well same shit different name
That got nothing to do with extended series and is not even close to the same. Thats how double elimination tournament has and should always work.
|
ppl have to understand that even though it is 10-0 for player A in series against player B, player B can still be the better player because hes better vs the other players overall.
also, if player A is too dumb to win vs the others while player B wins them, its just totally fair to let player B advance. Just like the losers bracket in MLG - if a player is able to fight the long way back to play another guy again, he shouldve a fair chance. his way was a lot harder to get to the match, he first match was meaningful enough.
|
If feel like the OP doesn't understand the point of the GSL format. The concept is very simple. If you win 2 games, you advance. If you lose 2 games, you don't advance. Let's take MarineKing and Genius. They both beat each other once. Map score does not matter at all. They are both 1-1. Now let's look at their other match. Genius beat Nestea. MarineKing lost to DRG. Genius won, he advances. MarineKing lost, he doesn't advance. It's that easy.
"But but but! MarineKing won one more map against Genius" - It doesn't matter at all! Even if it did matter, Genius won an entire extra set.
Obviously I voted No. The system is fair as it is.
|
Germany1287 Posts
Dont think of the GSL groups as a "group" that needs to count mapscores of players against each other, but as a double elimination bracket, because that's essentially what it is.
On April 14 2012 22:31 robinroz wrote: Genius 0-2 MarineKing Genius 2-1 MarineKing Genius 2-3 MarineKing
tldr; everything's fine, get the abominational extended series out of your heads.
|
People are looking at tennis for counter examples, but the examples don't need to go that far away. Fighting games Consist of multiple rounds and sets for each match (I hope my terminology is correct). Usually you need to win two rounds to win a match and the amount of matches has a SC2 like variance.
If player X losses 0-2 in the first match then wins 2-1 and wins one last time 2-1 in a best of 3 match. Player X will win over player Y with a 4-4. However no one will be upset about this because to some level each round (which corresponds to SC2 sets) are not isolates to be analyzed as such. For two reasons things meter in fighting games or special build orders in Starcraft 2 and because everyone needs to realize that in winning a best of 3 2-0 should simply be a win outside of tie breakers.The every given series is a whole thing(sure it is arbitrary and everyone would like longer series) and to break it a apart to form extended series is breaking apart something that is in a single unit as a method of deciding advancement.
Imaging turning fighting games matches into extended series? It is ridiculous and not just because meter and other mechanics but because you have just fundamentally changed the way advancement is a decided in a game citing what seems like:
Well number of matches won are arbitrary what really matters are rounds. Could we further go:
Rounds are arbitrary what really matter is damage that is how real skill is measured. Whoever does the most damage in a given round wins.
I am not arguing that this is what extended series will turn into but that it ignores the series/set(sc2) dynamic of Starcraft 2 without giving a good reason and thus ignoring part of the way the game is played EVERYWHERE but MLG.
|
No one likes extended series. Every tournament should eradicate it.
|
System is completely fine, as much as I like MKP. If you complain about that, you'll complain about anything I fear.
|
On April 15 2012 01:30 zere wrote:Dont think of the GSL groups as a "group" that needs to count mapscores of players against each other, but as a double elimination bracket, because that's essentially what it is. Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 22:31 robinroz wrote: Genius 0-2 MarineKing Genius 2-1 MarineKing Genius 2-3 MarineKing
tldr; everything's fine, get the abominational extended series out of your heads.
|
The reason for using extended series is to more accurately decide who is the best player, since that is what a tournament is trying to do. It simply increases the accuracy while only adding a very small amount of extra games played.
You could reasonably argue that it detracts from excitement. Personally I would rather that they are more accurate, but to each his own.
Most people here though seem to argue my first statement, without using any arguments for it.
|
|
GSL's Group play system is imo one of the best systems in use currently. This suggestion makes my head hurt. A lot
|
On April 15 2012 03:56 Zyrre wrote: The reason for using extended series is to more accurately decide who is the best player, since that is what a tournament is trying to do. It simply increases the accuracy while only adding a very small amount of extra games played.
You could reasonably argue that it detracts from excitement. Personally I would rather that they are more accurate, but to each his own.
Most people here though seem to argue my first statement, without using any arguments for it.
I remember there being a statistical analysis for extended series being more accurate in deciding the best player. However it is more accurate in virtue of having more games, but the way it decided to play those games is not the best way (it seems rather unjust toward the person who lost first).
I think codifying rules that give more games is a great idea. However it should be done with out forgetting about important facts about how the skill is measured it self.
|
I would support making them play bo5s from ro16 on (even though player stamina would definitely come into play), but fuck extended series.
|
Canada10904 Posts
Why ever would we want extended series in the GSL when we complain so much about them being in the MLG?
|
On April 15 2012 04:23 Windd wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 03:56 Zyrre wrote: The reason for using extended series is to more accurately decide who is the best player, since that is what a tournament is trying to do. It simply increases the accuracy while only adding a very small amount of extra games played.
You could reasonably argue that it detracts from excitement. Personally I would rather that they are more accurate, but to each his own.
Most people here though seem to argue my first statement, without using any arguments for it. I remember there being a statistical analysis for extended series being more accurate in deciding the best player. However it is more accurate in virtue of having more games, but the way it decided to play those games is not the best way (it seems rather unjust toward the person who lost first). I think codifying rules that give more games is a great idea. However it should be done with out forgetting about important facts about how the skill is measured it self.
I mostly agree. Debating wether or not extended series is fair in and of itself seems moot though. We should be thinking of it relative to the two BO3s we end up with in the current most used system. In this case I see the extended series being more accurate and fair.
|
From the poll it would seem that starcraft spectators could care less about how fair a tournament is set up. I would think that spectators would prefer the extended series rule just because it would allow them to potentially seem more games(Bo7 instead of 2 Bo3). I think that if you change the poll to say "Yes, I want to see more games!" the number of votes would drastically increase! LOL
|
On April 15 2012 03:56 Zyrre wrote: The reason for using extended series is to more accurately decide who is the best player, since that is what a tournament is trying to do. It simply increases the accuracy while only adding a very small amount of extra games played.
You could reasonably argue that it detracts from excitement. Personally I would rather that they are more accurate, but to each his own.
Most people here though seem to argue my first statement, without using any arguments for it.
The goal of a tournament isn't to determine who the best player is; the goal of a tournament is to decide a winner.
Making a tournament about determining who the best player is turns it into complete nonsense. If you wanted it to be about that then you would strive for as much granularity in your judgement of a player's performance as possible. If it was about determining who's the best then shouldn't a proxy 2-rax or 6-pool count for less than an epic comeback in a 40 minute macro game? Well it doesn't. Every map win is worth the same. Every BoX win is worth the same. The tournament doesn't care about the fashion in which you won, if it was nice play or ugly play, if you beat a champion or a last minute replacement.
|
Oh my god, Extended series is quite possibly the worst part of Starcraft 2. Just flat out god awful. IMHO OF COURSE!
|
Everyone here is more annoyed with the fact that there is a WB and a LB; there is no point of having this format if there isn't some kind of advantage for the person in the WB such as extended series or having to win two Bo5. I personally don't like the double elimination style as it creates this kind of silly discussion around did the better player have a fair shot? There are times where the LB has a harder run for a certain player because of how it all comes out, but you have to remember that all the guys who are in the LB were put there by another player. I personally like the MLG type system where there is group play that seeds you into a single elimination tournament making those who have won every game in their group; they get put into the quarter finals already and therefore the fact that they have played so well, leads them to have a good shot at winning the whole thing, and all other results in the previous matches are ignored or unimportant. The punishment or difficulty becomes the amount of people you have to beat for going 0-5 in your group or what have you.
|
On April 15 2012 04:42 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 03:56 Zyrre wrote: The reason for using extended series is to more accurately decide who is the best player, since that is what a tournament is trying to do. It simply increases the accuracy while only adding a very small amount of extra games played.
You could reasonably argue that it detracts from excitement. Personally I would rather that they are more accurate, but to each his own.
Most people here though seem to argue my first statement, without using any arguments for it. The goal of a tournament isn't to determine who the best player is; the goal of a tournament is to decide a winner. Making a tournament about determining who the best player is turns it into complete nonsense. If you wanted it to be about that then you would strive for as much granularity in your judgement of a player's performance as possible. If it was about determining who's the best then shouldn't a proxy 2-rax or 6-pool count for less than an epic comeback in a 40 minute macro game? Well it doesn't. Every map win is worth the same. Every BoX win is worth the same. The tournament doesn't care about the fashion in which you won, if it was nice play or ugly play, if you beat a champion or a last minute replacement. Of course the goal is to determine the best player. We use double elim because we have to compromise. It uses a relatively low amount of games, it's easy to understand and there is a clear progression which builds excitement and makes it pleasurable to watch. Adding a very small amount of games in exchange for being more accurate and fair(and no harder to understand than the double boX that occur in double elim) seems like a good idea to me.
|
Wait, so some people actually think extended series is a good idea? oO
|
On April 15 2012 04:41 Xlancer wrote: From the poll it would seem that starcraft spectators could care less about how fair a tournament is set up. I would think that spectators would prefer the extended series rule just because it would allow them to potentially seem more games(Bo7 instead of 2 Bo3). I think that if you change the poll to say "Yes, I want to see more games!" the number of votes would drastically increase! LOL
except that's called loading statements.
if for example, you asked if spectators wanted a bo7 or a bo7 through extended series, i think you can imagine what kind of answers you'd get. don't go trying to make everyone else look dumb. There is no evidence that an extended series makes a game more "fair" for anyone, at least not more than simply adding more games.
|
Lmao some1 took extended series like some serious thing that is actually used in rts tournaments.
Dude you watched too much mlg.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
no...
The gsl format rewards the winners of the first game and punishes the loser.
2 losses -> 2 wins -> we play each other is fair imo. even if you win the first and lose the second if its a big deal then dont lose the first game.
Double elimination is different than winners/losers matches into a losers-winner match [sounds so akward] but both are fine and the gsl version is way more dramatic so i prefer it personally.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On April 14 2012 23:43 HaXXspetten wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 23:39 Koshi wrote: It makes more sense to use extended series in the GSL than in MLG. True. ...but it would still be fucking terrible >.> This. For GSL there is some kind of logic to it, even though they should definitely not implement it. For MLG, it's FUCKING INSANE!
|
Extended series is about the most retarded thing you could have for SC2 matches. They are seperate events, end of story.
|
Extended series is just bad man...makes me sad this topic exists.
|
In my opinion extended series has like nothing to do with "fairness". The winner probably has the psychological advantage anyway plus he didn't have to claw his way back in must-win situation type games, this is more of an unfair disadvantage for the loser than a fair advantage for the winner.
|
On April 15 2012 04:54 Zyrre wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:42 hugman wrote:On April 15 2012 03:56 Zyrre wrote: The reason for using extended series is to more accurately decide who is the best player, since that is what a tournament is trying to do. It simply increases the accuracy while only adding a very small amount of extra games played.
You could reasonably argue that it detracts from excitement. Personally I would rather that they are more accurate, but to each his own.
Most people here though seem to argue my first statement, without using any arguments for it. The goal of a tournament isn't to determine who the best player is; the goal of a tournament is to decide a winner. Making a tournament about determining who the best player is turns it into complete nonsense. If you wanted it to be about that then you would strive for as much granularity in your judgement of a player's performance as possible. If it was about determining who's the best then shouldn't a proxy 2-rax or 6-pool count for less than an epic comeback in a 40 minute macro game? Well it doesn't. Every map win is worth the same. Every BoX win is worth the same. The tournament doesn't care about the fashion in which you won, if it was nice play or ugly play, if you beat a champion or a last minute replacement. Of course the goal is to determine the best player. We use double elim because we have to compromise. It uses a relatively low amount of games, it's easy to understand and there is a clear progression which builds excitement and makes it pleasurable to watch. Adding a very small amount of games in exchange for being more accurate and fair(and no harder to understand than the double boX that occur in double elim) seems like a good idea to me.
It doesn't make it any more fair at all. Fairness is subjective. You can't use it as an argument for a rule. For example, why is it more fair to use head to head map score than overall map score?
Extended series is bad because it's an inconsistency. Genius and MKP had both won one Bo3 and lost one Bo3. Because they had played eachother extended series would kick in and say that the mapscore, in just one of the three Bo3s that they had played, should matter and give Genius a disadvantage in the last match. It's changing the rules depending on who you play and it's arbitrary. The only way you get a semblance of fairness is if you keep the rules consistent, for everyone, every time.
|
Extended series would not make sense at all. The advantage that MarineKing got in the example posted by the OP is that he got 2 chances to advance, while Genius only got 1. The system is more than fair. OP is just sad that his favourite player didn't make it imo
Also it makes for much better storylines when going through the group stage - Will the same players meet again in the final match? Will they use the same strategies? etc.
|
On April 15 2012 05:18 SkimGuy wrote: Extended series would not make sense at all. The advantage that MarineKing got in the example posted by the OP is that he got 2 chances to advance, while Genius only got 1. The system is more than fair. OP is just sad that his favourite player didn't make it imo
Also it makes for much better storylines when going through the group stage - Will the same players meet again in the final match? Will they use the same strategies? etc.
Agreed. You look at it in terms of "chances to advance", not in terms of who are actually playing against each other.
|
The way its set up is good, if anything I'd like to see a best of 5, instead of best of 3.
|
Is this joke? Extended series? In GSL? Definitly not!
|
This is interesting. It is definitely a flaw in itself, but obviously extended series has it's own flaws. I was thinking about this a few days ago in terms of the Alive-Squirtle finals at IPL4. In theory, in that format as well (loser of the previous match had to win 2 Bo5s to win the finals), the same situation could have occurred. If the first match went 1-2, the second match had gone 3-0 in favor of the loser of the first match, and the finals had gone 2-3 in favor of the winner of the first match, the loser of the first match would have lost the tournament, while having won six games in favor of the winner's five. This is clearly a flaw in tournament design (most of these decisions are based on time constraints- ironically, the IPL4 format allows for MORE games in the finals (10 max) with no more certainty than if the entire finals had been Bo7 or 9). Back to the GSL format. The simple solution would be to make tie breaker matches Bo7 extended series (not Bo5- it way overly favors the previous winner and does not increase certainty that the better player advanced). This guarantees that the previous winner cannot lose while being up in games, and at most would require 5 more games (instead of max 3). Still, this is a big time commitment as tie-breakers are already over-time so to speak. 5 more games could potentially last 2 or more hours. The compromise is to have a Bo5 extended series, and this is THE CORRECT SITUATION IN WHICH AN EXTENDED SERIES SHOULD BE PERFORMED. Because this is a group stage and both players have already proven or disproven themselves against all other opponents and each other, it is entirely reasonable for eliminations to be decided on a sudden death basis (the reality of what an extended series that only allows the loser one chance to redeem themselves is). There is another glaring flaw in the GSL groups format that would prevent this kind of odd result, but I'll let you guys figure that out for yourselves.
|
Extended series would not make sense at all. The advantage that MarineKing got in the example posted by the OP is that he got 2 chances to advance, while Genius only got 1. The system is more than fair. OP is just sad that his favourite player didn't make it imo
Also it makes for much better storylines when going through the group stage - Will the same players meet again in the final match? Will they use the same strategies? etc.
Agreed. You look at it in terms of "chances to advance", not in terms of who are actually playing against each other.
This depends on what you define the purpose of a tournament to be. If you define it in terms of the highest possible certainty that the most deserving player advances, it doesn't fly. However, if you define it in terms of individual achievement in a particular set of matches, the concept which in reality most tournaments past a certain stage rely on, then yeah, it works. The problem is that in any group stage, in any tournament, the purpose is to sort out the most deserving challenges for the higher stages of the tournament where the stakes are higher and the certainty that a particular player who advances was more deserving than another player who didn't advance goes down.
|
On April 15 2012 05:18 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:54 Zyrre wrote:On April 15 2012 04:42 hugman wrote:On April 15 2012 03:56 Zyrre wrote: The reason for using extended series is to more accurately decide who is the best player, since that is what a tournament is trying to do. It simply increases the accuracy while only adding a very small amount of extra games played.
You could reasonably argue that it detracts from excitement. Personally I would rather that they are more accurate, but to each his own.
Most people here though seem to argue my first statement, without using any arguments for it. The goal of a tournament isn't to determine who the best player is; the goal of a tournament is to decide a winner. Making a tournament about determining who the best player is turns it into complete nonsense. If you wanted it to be about that then you would strive for as much granularity in your judgement of a player's performance as possible. If it was about determining who's the best then shouldn't a proxy 2-rax or 6-pool count for less than an epic comeback in a 40 minute macro game? Well it doesn't. Every map win is worth the same. Every BoX win is worth the same. The tournament doesn't care about the fashion in which you won, if it was nice play or ugly play, if you beat a champion or a last minute replacement. Of course the goal is to determine the best player. We use double elim because we have to compromise. It uses a relatively low amount of games, it's easy to understand and there is a clear progression which builds excitement and makes it pleasurable to watch. Adding a very small amount of games in exchange for being more accurate and fair(and no harder to understand than the double boX that occur in double elim) seems like a good idea to me. It doesn't make it any more fair at all. Fairness is subjective. You can't use it as an argument for a rule. For example, why is it more fair to use head to head map score than overall map score? Extended series is bad because it's an inconsistency. Genius and MKP had both won one Bo3 and lost one Bo3. Because they had played eachother extended series would kick in and say that the mapscore, in just one of the three Bo3s that they had played, should matter and give Genius a disadvantage in the last match. It's changing the rules depending on who you play and it's arbitrary. The only way you get a semblance of fairness is if you keep the rules consistent, for everyone, every time.
Fairness might be subjective, but a bo7 is still more accurate in determening who the better player is then two bo3s.
Why would you call it arbitrary? Consistency does not mean good either. Every round is determined by a cointoss, thats consistent and terrible.
|
On April 14 2012 23:07 ArcticRaven wrote: The better player didn't win ? If he doesn't win then he isn't the better player. As simple as this might sound, this is the correct answer to the question.
Objectively, there's no such thing as a "better player" before the game has been played. After a game, you can say "this player was better than the other", which means he won. All other considerations should be neglected.
|
On April 15 2012 05:44 Zyrre wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 05:18 hugman wrote:On April 15 2012 04:54 Zyrre wrote:On April 15 2012 04:42 hugman wrote:On April 15 2012 03:56 Zyrre wrote: The reason for using extended series is to more accurately decide who is the best player, since that is what a tournament is trying to do. It simply increases the accuracy while only adding a very small amount of extra games played.
You could reasonably argue that it detracts from excitement. Personally I would rather that they are more accurate, but to each his own.
Most people here though seem to argue my first statement, without using any arguments for it. The goal of a tournament isn't to determine who the best player is; the goal of a tournament is to decide a winner. Making a tournament about determining who the best player is turns it into complete nonsense. If you wanted it to be about that then you would strive for as much granularity in your judgement of a player's performance as possible. If it was about determining who's the best then shouldn't a proxy 2-rax or 6-pool count for less than an epic comeback in a 40 minute macro game? Well it doesn't. Every map win is worth the same. Every BoX win is worth the same. The tournament doesn't care about the fashion in which you won, if it was nice play or ugly play, if you beat a champion or a last minute replacement. Of course the goal is to determine the best player. We use double elim because we have to compromise. It uses a relatively low amount of games, it's easy to understand and there is a clear progression which builds excitement and makes it pleasurable to watch. Adding a very small amount of games in exchange for being more accurate and fair(and no harder to understand than the double boX that occur in double elim) seems like a good idea to me. It doesn't make it any more fair at all. Fairness is subjective. You can't use it as an argument for a rule. For example, why is it more fair to use head to head map score than overall map score? Extended series is bad because it's an inconsistency. Genius and MKP had both won one Bo3 and lost one Bo3. Because they had played eachother extended series would kick in and say that the mapscore, in just one of the three Bo3s that they had played, should matter and give Genius a disadvantage in the last match. It's changing the rules depending on who you play and it's arbitrary. The only way you get a semblance of fairness is if you keep the rules consistent, for everyone, every time. Fairness might be subjective, but a bo7 is still more accurate in determening who the better player is then two bo3s. Why would you call it arbitrary? Consistency does not mean good either. Every round is determined by a cointoss, thats consistent and terrible. This is your opinion, some may think the best player is the player who can win ONE game with a week of preparation like some non electronics sport.
|
On April 14 2012 22:31 robinroz wrote: Blue: For example, it's unfair to Mvp (in Mvp 4-1 Lucky) that he comes within a game of elimination even though, by final score, he is decidedly better than Lucky.
Thoughts?
Mvp lost his next game losing his advantage, while Lucky won it losing his disadvantage. In my book, both players deserve to fight anew.
|
If you didn't put so much effort into the OP I swear you are just trolling, I mean, proposing to SC2 community MORE extended series ?
|
On April 15 2012 00:18 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 00:13 Derez wrote: The GSL format is perfect as it is. Extended series lead to garbage, uninteresting games and round robin is not a viable alternative because playing 6 bo3's for every day of pool play would simply be too long. Tournaments need to be watchable from an entertainment perspective without having to sit in front of your TV for 8 hours. round robin are 6 bo3's. The system right now is 5 bo3's, I don't think this is the big problem. 6 BO3 + the possibility of tiebreakers. When it comes to broadcasting, that makes it even more difficult.
They also had a mix between a short round robin group and a "you might play the same guy twice" for most of the GSL, they'd just stop after 5 games most of the time if they could determine it by then. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_LG_Cinema_3D_Global_StarCraft_II_League_May/Code_S
|
On April 15 2012 05:44 Zyrre wrote:
Fairness might be subjective, but a bo7 is still more accurate in determening who the better player is then two bo3s.
Why would you call it arbitrary? Consistency does not mean good either. Every round is determined by a cointoss, thats consistent and terrible.
If the rules are too inconsistent between games then that sort of makes competition pointless. If every round is determined by a cointoss, then that's not a StarCraft tournament. If the number of games in each series is determined by a dice throw, then that's a StarCraft tournament with an inconsistent structure that makes the whole notion of competition pointless because you're not competing on equal terms.
Yes MKP beat Genuis the first time they met. So what? Genius beat Nestea. Why should MKP's game give him an advantage?
Is it also unfair if every game MKP loses is a nail biter, while every game Genius loses is a complete knock out?
|
Is it unfair if a baseball team the first 3 games in the world series 10-0 and then loses the next 4 games 1-0?
The total score is 30-4 for Team 1 but Team 2 wins the championship.
|
No, just because they are even score, the two sets are different, and here is why.
The winner of the first set gets an advantage, while the loser gets a disadvantage: - The winner gets a chance to advance after winning one more set - The loser risks getting eliminated if he loses his next set
THEREFORE, if they meet again, then the previous winner already "used up" that chance that was gained from his first win, while the loser battled back in his risky position of being eliminated.
Because of this, both players should be now on even grounds, since the advantage and punishment of the first set already existed.
|
I know everyone and their mothers hates the extended series rule, but I can see where he's coming from. A player get into the ro32 by beating one player twice, and possibly getting by on a single matchup, which seems very silly. For example in the Naniwa, puzzle, ryung, MVP group we had a situation where ryung smashes MVP, loses to naniwa then loses to MVP. In this particular situation Ryung 2-0'd MVP, then MVP returned the favor, but let's say in the second series MVP 2-1's Ryung. That means Ryung goes 3-2 vs MVP and still fails to get through.
Now I definitely think the extended series rule is dumb as hell and GOM is right to avoid it like the plague, but I also sympathize with the players that get punished because of this rule. I'm also a little uneasy when an arguably bad player can remain in Code S, or even advance, by getting by on a single matchup.
I don't really know what is a good solution for this. Having the players play the advancing and failed to advance players doesn't really count for anything as it could be in these players favor to either throw a game, or conserve themselves. It may also be a little difficult to play it out seriously if there is nothing for them to player for.
There is always that loser round mentality for a hybrid rule, where I player plays a player that has previously defeated them and if they are victorious then they play another bo3 to find out who the better player is. That should show who is the better player of the two more conclusively, however that still does not address the issue of potentially lower skilled players getting through on a single matchup.
One thing that I believe most people on TL would agree to, though, is that none of us want to see extended series rules in the GSL.
|
The whole point of having a Bo-Series instead of a single game is to determine a better player. Whether you win 2-0 or 2-1, you are the better player in the system. If you believe a single games determines a better player, then there is no point in playing more than one game.
In general, in any Bo-Series, the person who wins more Series is the better player, not the one who can get more map wins. There are no pointless games in this system, unlike the clusterfuck that IEM does.
|
I think the current GSL code S format is the best possible format given the time limitations they have.
The format is a variation of the Swiss system anyway, not really pure double elmination. The Danish variation to be precise. It's a point based, not elimination, or head to head map scores.
Double elim is better off with the extended series, but the Code S system doesnt need it.
|
On April 15 2012 06:48 fire_brand wrote: I know everyone and their mothers hates the extended series rule, but I can see where he's coming from. A player get into the ro32 by beating one player twice, and possibly getting by on a single matchup, which seems very silly. For example in the Naniwa, puzzle, ryung, MVP group we had a situation where ryung smashes MVP, loses to naniwa then loses to MVP. In this particular situation Ryung 2-0'd MVP, then MVP returned the favor, but let's say in the second series MVP 2-1's Ryung. That means Ryung goes 3-2 vs MVP and still fails to get through.
Now I definitely think the extended series rule is dumb as hell and GOM is right to avoid it like the plague, but I also sympathize with the players that get punished because of this rule. I'm also a little uneasy when an arguably bad player can remain in Code S, or even advance, by getting by on a single matchup.
I don't really know what is a good solution for this. Having the players play the advancing and failed to advance players doesn't really count for anything as it could be in these players favor to either throw a game, or conserve themselves. It may also be a little difficult to play it out seriously if there is nothing for them to player for.
The logic is a bit flawed though, because you're only considering those two player's head to head (Ryung vs MVP in your example). But the whole point of having it a GROUP stage, is to determine the best two players in that GROUP. Therefore you need to consider both player's overall group performance, and not just their head to head. So in your example, MVP advances because his set score is 2-1, while Ryung's was 1-2; it's that simple.
|
On April 15 2012 06:36 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 05:44 Zyrre wrote:
Fairness might be subjective, but a bo7 is still more accurate in determening who the better player is then two bo3s.
Why would you call it arbitrary? Consistency does not mean good either. Every round is determined by a cointoss, thats consistent and terrible. If the rules are too inconsistent between games then that sort of makes competition pointless. If every round is determined by a cointoss, then that's not a StarCraft tournament. If the number of games in each series is determined by a dice throw, then that's a StarCraft tournament with an inconsistent structure that makes the whole notion of competition pointless because you're not competing on equal terms. Yes MKP beat Genuis the first time they met. So what? Genius beat Nestea. Why should MKP's game give him an advantage? Is it also unfair if every game MKP loses is a nail biter, while every game Genius loses is a complete knock out?
Yes, using a dice throw would be terrible because its arbitrary, extended series is not.
The point of it is to better approximate who the better player is. If two players face twice in one tournament, it presents us with an opportunity to have a more accurate bo7 instead of two bo3s. You seem to think this is unfair to the player who loses the first bo3. However as stated in the op, using the two bo3s can eliminate the player who won more games against the other player in this specific tournament
MKP beating genius in their first series indicates he is a better player, Therefore he needed to win less games when they continued their bo7. How is this different then saying: MKP beat genius in game 1 of this bo3, now he needs to win less games then genius to win this set, he has an advantage. The only difference is you seeing them as two seperate series instead of one longer one, so time is the difference. What if there is some computer problems and they have to wait 10 minutes in their bo3? What if MKP loses next game to two 6 pools and the pause in between their bo7 is only 5 minutes? Time seems arbitrary in this case.
|
No. Esports need to get rid of extended series. Double elimination should also only be used in the beginning stages when there's 128+ players, but when it's down to 32 or less players group stages and single elimination is the way to go.
|
|
On April 15 2012 07:03 Champloo wrote: No. Esports need to get rid of extended series. Double elimination should also only be used in the beginning stages when there's 128+ players, but when it's down to 32 or less players group stages and single elimination is the way to go.
Yep, something I've been advocating around as well. It's all about making it count when your life is on the line.
|
Nobody actually wants the best 2 players to come out of the group, they just want to have "double elimination" at it's purest form because for some reason they think it's better.
I do not understand this position at all, why should a certain tournament format be sacrosanct?!?
I guess I'll never get it.
|
|
obviously is more fair the MLG way. I'd actually like to see a rather detailed response from a pro player who was unfaired by the extended series thing.
|
Are you kidding? Do you know how many people absolutely despise the MLG format. It often makes for the most anti-climactic finishes to what could potentially be good series. I'm sorry, but series should always be independent.
I'll use hockey as an example, but it applies for many sports. At the end of the season, the playoffs start. In the first round, those teams have played each other anywhere from 4-8 times in the regular season, and nobody has ever felt the need for an "extended series". Oh, team A won the season series 4-0 so they automatically move on... ya, it wouldn't be so awesome. New series bring new scenarios. Playing each other in group play is a far different feeling than playing someone in the semi-finals or the grand-finals.
The extended series rule is, in my opinion, the worst rule that is currently involved in e-sports.
|
Lol. I never thought there were people out there who enjoyed Extended Series. I'll just never understand some people's twisted minds.
|
On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage".
The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far.
|
I've actually thought of this, and the main reason I don't think it's good is that you can't make it an extended best of 5 because then one player is only 1 game away from winning, and you can't make it an extended best of 7 because then one player may have to win 4 games in a row, or it might take 5 games to finish the best of 7.
I think the dual tournament format is fair enough as is.
|
Absolutely. The excuse "the loser's bracket player had to play more games so it's fair" doesn't even apply here.
|
How can you judge who the better player is? The better player is who wins. Regardless of anything else.
|
Actually, a round robin format would be better. It's only one more Bo3 and there won't be ties because you can break them by set score.
|
On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example:
Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and B D lost against C and A A lost against B but won against D B won against A but lost against C
So the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2
At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better.
There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content.
The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group.
The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content.
|
The point of a tournament is to determine who wins, not who is the best player. If you want to take into account previous series between the two players why don't you just forget having them play altogether and compare their records against each other to see who advances?
|
No get that crap away from all tournaments. In something like GSL just 1win advantage alone would be incredible huge and more unfair to the other player then otherwise. Can you imagine a season final where 1 of the finalists starts with 2 sets more since he won in group stage? It basically becomes a bo3 vs a bo7, great finals you got there, ruined before it began.
|
On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. False analogy: extended series would also result if, say, B played against D, instead of A.
|
On April 15 2012 09:32 phantaxx wrote: The point of a tournament is to determine who wins, not who is the best player. If you want to take into account previous series between the two players why don't you just forget having them play altogether and compare their records against each other to see who advances? The point of a tournament is to determine who is the best player in the tournament, if it was only about winning regardless of the players skill you could go back to cointossing.
|
On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score.
|
On April 15 2012 09:34 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. False analogy: extended series would also result if, say, B played against D, instead of A. No it would not because there was no game of B vs D before
|
On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score.
Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1.
|
There's no need to mix past matches into the result of a current match. If that was the case, we'd just go by the players history against one another and include EVERY past match to decide "who's better"
When one of the players is 2-1, and the other is 1-2, I don't find an extended series necessary. The players are preparing for a Bo3 series, and this would change it into a possible Bo5. We won't see players doing any creative strategies when they're up 1-0, because they'd be worried it'll come back to haunt them later that night.
|
I dont get why you guys are so focussed on A vs B rematch having to be fair the second time for the first winner, even if A was the winner the first time around he doesnt need to be the better player overall.
Its so clean currently, you perform bo3's in a group of 4, the first 2 to make it to 2 wins are the more successfull players, simply. Your just counting Bo3's wins.
|
On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on.
|
On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. The solution to this problem would be a traditional group system and not extended series.
|
On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. No, that reasoning is flawed, and for few reasons
1) "harder" opponent is subjective, and it isn't always true. The recent Ryung/Naniwa/MVP/Puzzle group is good example of that. Naniwa won first set against Puzzle, and had to face Ryung as oppose to MVP. Those games clearly tells you that Ryung is definitely not a "harder" opponent than MVP.
2) You can't use subjective advantage to balance out a system: "harder opponent" and "gets more tired from playing more games" are not absolute advantages. You must balance out a system systematically.
Using your example, we're not discarding their first encounter: the fact that B won the first encounter gave him an absolute systematic advantage: A chance to advance the group; as in his next win allows him to advance, and at worst if he loses, it will simply puts him back to where he was. Now by contrast, the Loser is punished because he faces elimination if he loses, and even if he wins, he doesn't get to advance.
Therefore, their first encounter is already taken into consideration, it wasn't discarded when they faced again: The fact that they are now both 1-1, means it counted the first game, and they both have won once and lost once in the group.
*edit: TLDR version: winning the first set is always better than losing, regardless of your opponent. Because at worst, even if you lose, you'll just be put back to where you were; while the loser actually has to win his next set or face elimination.
|
Harder opponent? lol please keep that shitty categorization away from GSL.
|
On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage.
Edit: Harder opponent means the better performing opponent, matchups do influence this part quite a bit sure, but taking this into consideration is impossible because you would have to look at every player seperately.
|
On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage. Player B already got his advantage, if he fails to use it right why should he get another one for free? Also, the "harder" opponent is not valid, see Naniwa's group this GSL like someone else said before.
|
On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage. Edit: Harder opponent means the better performing opponent, matchups do influence this part quite a bit sure, but taking this into consideration is impossible because you would have to look at every player seperately. Exactly why you can't balance any format like this.
You can't use subjective advantages/disadvantages to balance any tournament format, because you can never define them perfectly. These are just some of subjective advantages people like to use 1) How do you define what better mine set is? 2) "He gets more tired from having to play more games", is also subjective, because some players might view playing more games as keeping themselves warmed up? Or having more chances to practice? 3) "Harder" opponent is always debatable. So what if he was better "performing" so far? That doesn't mean anything if he isn't harder; but you can't define "harder"
You must use absolute systematic advantages like these: 1) Winner advances, therefore he is one win closer to winning: This is ALWAYS true and is always an advantage. 2) First person to get 2 sets of win advances, first person to win 2 games wins a set: this is always true, and must apply to everyone equally.
|
On April 15 2012 10:02 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage. Player B already got his advantage, if he fails to use it right why should he get another one for free? Also, the "harder" opponent is not valid, see Naniwa's group this GSL like someone else said before.
As I said in the Edit harder in this case means better performing till that point, which is the only way we can measure the players skill for this tournament. Matchups do play a significant role, but that has to be considered case by case and can't be considered in the overarching system. After A vs B Part 1 the goal for both players remained the same but B earned a win it while A failed. As a result of that early win B now has to play better-performing players which is, as I said, the only way to evaluate the challenge B had to face compared to A for the given group stage, for a really fair evaluation you would need A to play C and B to play D to complete a full round robin system, but that would result in a complete group stage.
|
Another very very simple way to look at this is to treat each games as "points" or "scores" like in every other sports.
In Basketball for example, the points you get in the game is solely for measuring who wins that game. The score never carries over to the next game. The only advantage of getting more score is to win the game, and by winning the games, you get a permanent advantage of being one step closer to winning the tournament.
This is the same in Hockey, in Football, in Tennis, in soccer, in every sport. You're trying to argue that in the NBA, if Lakers beats Celtics in game 1 by a score of 90-40, then Celtics came back and won game 2 and 3 both by 89-90, Lakers should win the series? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? And neither does it make sense for SC
|
On April 15 2012 10:13 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:02 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage. Player B already got his advantage, if he fails to use it right why should he get another one for free? Also, the "harder" opponent is not valid, see Naniwa's group this GSL like someone else said before. As I said in the Edit harder in this case means better performing till that point, which is the only way we can measure the players skill for this tournament. Matchups do play a significant role, but that has to be considered case by case and can't be considered in the overarching system. After A vs B Part 1 the goal for both players remained the same but B earned a win it while A failed. As a result of that early win B now has to play better-performing players which is, as I said, the only way to evaluate the challenge B had to face compared to A for the given group stage, for a really fair evaluation you would need A to play C and B to play D to complete a full round robin system, but that would result in a complete group stage. It doesn't matter if you can prove that he had to play a harder opponent or not; fact of the matter is, advancing to play a harder opponent is ALWAYS still better than losing to play a worser opponent. Do you not understand how this is true?
Therefore, winner the first set is always awarded an advantage, and vice versa, losing, the first set always punishes you, regardless of their next opponent.
|
On April 15 2012 10:11 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage. Edit: Harder opponent means the better performing opponent, matchups do influence this part quite a bit sure, but taking this into consideration is impossible because you would have to look at every player seperately. Exactly why you can't balance any format like this. You can't use subjective advantages/disadvantages to balance any tournament format, because you can never define them perfectly. These are just some of subjective advantages people like to use 1) How do you define what better mine set is? 2) "He gets more tired from having to play more games", is also subjective, because some players might view playing more games as keeping themselves warmed up? Or having more chances to practice? 3) "Harder" opponent is always debatable. So what if he was better "performing" so far? That doesn't mean anything if he isn't harder; but you can't define "harder" You must use absolute systematic advantages like these: 1) Winner advances, therefore he is one win closer to winning: This is ALWAYS true and is always an advantage. 2) First person to get 2 sets of win advances, first person to win 2 games wins a set: this is always true, and must apply to everyone equally. 1.1) I didn't and if you are not allowed to consider mindset you can't say that A has his back against the wall, because the objective doesn't change just his situation does, the task in itself does not get easier or harder, Player B just fulfilled part of it already 1.2) I never thought about a more tired aspect, i don't care about that, don't know where that is coming from 1.3) If you want to take the performance of the whole group stage into account you have to evaluate each players way to A vs B Part II otherwise you oversimplify it by just saying, meh they are both at equal scores.
2.1) Winner earned it and as i said the task remains the same which is why that advantage should never come back to bite the winners ass 2.2) That wouldn't be changed by the extended series
|
On April 15 2012 10:13 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:02 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage. Player B already got his advantage, if he fails to use it right why should he get another one for free? Also, the "harder" opponent is not valid, see Naniwa's group this GSL like someone else said before. As I said in the Edit harder in this case means better performing till that point, which is the only way we can measure the players skill for this tournament. Matchups do play a significant role, but that has to be considered case by case and can't be considered in the overarching system. After A vs B Part 1 the goal for both players remained the same but B earned a win it while A failed. As a result of that early win B now has to play better-performing players which is, as I said, the only way to evaluate the challenge B had to face compared to A for the given group stage, for a really fair evaluation you would need A to play C and B to play D to complete a full round robin system, but that would result in a complete group stage.
I think the fact that winning the first match means a player only has to win one match out of two and losing the first means that they must win two out of two is enough of an advantage/disadvantage as it is. Any more would be going too far and would place too much importance on the first match.
|
On April 15 2012 10:20 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:13 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 10:02 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:58 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:47 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 09:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 09:35 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 09:28 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 08:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 07:23 Bazinga wrote:I feel like a bo7 is better than two bo3s and because of that that extended series are good. Here are a blog entry and a thread explaining the merit of the extended series: The mathematics of Extended Series (Bo7) vs 2 Bo3sStatistical Analysis of Extended SeriesThe only reason not to use an extended series would be because it doesn't feel right from a traditional standpoint, but i do not know why that should even matter. The math is wrong. It did not consider each player's performance of their other games in the group (or the whole tournament for MLG's case); but that is the whole point of having a group stage, to find the best players in that GROUP (by extension, best players in the tournament for MLG). Therefore, you can't simply consider their head to head and be like "oh this player did better against this guy in their last meeting, lets give him an advantage". The better player of the two isn't simply which one of the two beat eachother more, it's which one of the two performed better overall in the group/tournament thus far. The point is that it considers each players performance in the groups till that point, discarding the first match between both players does not. I hope i can explain it by the following example: Player A, B, C and D are playing in the groups C won against D and BD lost against C and AA lost against B but won against DB won against A but lost against CSo the group standings are now: C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 At this point the only players that are left to be evaluated are A and B and in order to do that you have to determine which one of both players is better. There are a few ways of doing this: The first option would be to say that B already won against A so B should advance. This is the worst option because it results in less content. The second option would be discarding the first evaluation of A vs B and starting anew, which can be done and is a valid way of determining the better of both players. The problem here is that you are not rewarding player B for his win in the first game, but you are instead punishing him because he had to play C, the tougher opponent, in his 2nd match, while A had to play D, the worst player in this group. The third option would be using an extended series format to determine the order of Player A and B more accurately than with another bo3. From the player standpoint this should be the favored option because it rewards the overall better player. As a viewer you get the 2-5 more games which means likely more content. You don't discard anything. The fact that both players are at 1-1 means that they are both exactly even in the group, period. Therefore, there is zero reason to give anyone of them an extra advantage at that point. Again, it's irrelevant who they have won or lost against thus far in the group. They both lost and won once, so they are facing each other again to determine who will advance with a 2-1 score. Saying they are both even at 1-1 means that you are discarding their first encounter because at that point you say that both players roads to the 1-1 was equal while it wasn't. B had to play the harder opponent because B won A vs B Part 1. B already got an advantage tough from winning the A vs B part 1. He only needs to win 1 more match and even can lose one before his tournament ends. A on the other end has play with his back against the wall the whole time and 1 mistake can cost him the tournament. So A already got a disadvantage in group stage, why should he get another one in another part of the tournament? It is not just about A and B, there is a whole tournament going on. Part 2 of A vs B in this case would still be the group stage in the GSL, which is the tournament we are talking about. That disadvantage disappears when both players meet again, because now both of them have their backs against the wall and you could argue that Player A already got his mind set from his first elimination game while Player B has to deal with a new situation AND Player B still had the tougher opponents in the given groupstage. Player B already got his advantage, if he fails to use it right why should he get another one for free? Also, the "harder" opponent is not valid, see Naniwa's group this GSL like someone else said before. As I said in the Edit harder in this case means better performing till that point, which is the only way we can measure the players skill for this tournament. Matchups do play a significant role, but that has to be considered case by case and can't be considered in the overarching system. After A vs B Part 1 the goal for both players remained the same but B earned a win it while A failed. As a result of that early win B now has to play better-performing players which is, as I said, the only way to evaluate the challenge B had to face compared to A for the given group stage, for a really fair evaluation you would need A to play C and B to play D to complete a full round robin system, but that would result in a complete group stage. It doesn't matter if you can prove that he had to play a harder opponent or not; fact of the matter is, advancing to play a harder opponent is ALWAYS still better than losing to play a worser opponent. Do you not understand how this is true? Therefore, winner the first set is always awarded an advantage, and vice versa, losing, the first set always punishes you, regardless of their next opponent. Actually no because it doesn't change the given task and its requirements, you still have to win 2 out of a maximum of 3 games, everything else is just catering to the mental aspect.
Your Lakers-Celtics argument is not applicable because in basketball you have 3 layers points, sets and matches while you have only two in sc2 sets and matches. Adding a 3rd layer to sc2 would mean carrying over an army or economy advantage into the next set.
|
1.1) I didn't and if you are not allowed to consider mindset you can't say that A has his back against the wall, because the objective doesn't change just his situation does, the task in itself does not get easier or harder, Player B just fulfilled part of it already We're not talking about mindset here when we say "he has his back against the wall". It simply means if he loses one more set, he is out. While the winner can still lose 2 more sets. 2 is always greater than 1. See? It's a math thing, an absolute advantage that is always true, not something that is subjective like "mind sets"
1.2) I never thought about a more tired aspect, i don't care about that, don't know where that is coming from Was just an example of subjective advantages, many people like to use this in debates for extended series.
1.3) If you want to take the performance of the whole group stage into account you have to evaluate each players way to A vs B Part II otherwise you oversimplify it by just saying, meh they are both at equal scores. And we did consider their ways to it. A won his first and lost his 2nd set, while B lost his first and won his 2nd set: therefore they are both exactly even at that stage, so neither should be given an advantage or disadvantage.
2.1) Winner earned it and as i said the task remains the same which is why that advantage should never come back to bite the winners ass The advantage never comes back to bite the winner's ass. As I have explained it in the previous post, winning the first set is ALWAYS ALWAYS better than losing the first set, regardless if he has to play a better or worse opponent.
2.2) That wouldn't be changed by the extended series Extended series does change the balance of the game systematically. Because now only ONE player in the whole tournament has to win a set by winning 3 games. Sure, whoever wins, will still end up 2-1 set score and advance, but one of the players has to win 3-4 games for their 2nd set, while no one else has to.
|
i don't even understand why we have to explain to idiots the same things over and over again. why is such thread not closed on sight? if you fail to think in a logical way, it is not my duty to explain to you why you are WRONG.
|
On April 15 2012 10:28 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +1.1) I didn't and if you are not allowed to consider mindset you can't say that A has his back against the wall, because the objective doesn't change just his situation does, the task in itself does not get easier or harder, Player B just fulfilled part of it already We're not talking about mindset here when we say "he has his back against the wall". It simply means if he loses one more set, he is out. While the winner can still lose 2 more sets. 2 is always greater than 1. See? It's a math thing, an absolute advantage that is always true, not something that is subjective like "mind sets" Show nested quote +1.2) I never thought about a more tired aspect, i don't care about that, don't know where that is coming from Was just an example of subjective advantages, many people like to use this in debates for extended series. Show nested quote +1.3) If you want to take the performance of the whole group stage into account you have to evaluate each players way to A vs B Part II otherwise you oversimplify it by just saying, meh they are both at equal scores. And we did consider their ways to it. A won his first and lost his 2nd set, while B lost his first and won his 2nd set: therefore they are both exactly even at that stage, so neither should be given an advantage or disadvantage. Show nested quote +2.1) Winner earned it and as i said the task remains the same which is why that advantage should never come back to bite the winners ass The advantage never comes back to bite the winner's ass. As I have explained it in the previous post, winning the first set is ALWAYS ALWAYS better than losing the first set, regardless if he has to play a better or worse opponent. Extended series does change the balance of the game systematically. Because now only ONE player in the whole tournament has to win a set by winning 3 games. Sure, whoever wins, will still end up 2-1 set score and advance, but one of the players has to win 3-4 games for their 2nd set, while no one else has to. 1.1 Being condescending doesn't help your argument, please try to stay objective on this matter even though we disagree with each other. Losing the 1st set just means that Player A had to use his out earlier, doesn't mean he has less, 2 out of 3 still stays 2 out of 3.
1.2 I did not like to use it which is why it had no place in our argument
1.3 They are not even because they had to go different ways, that is a fact, looking at the score and seeing both have a score of 1-1 is an oversimplification
2.1 winning the first set is better than losing the first set that is true, but only because you already fulfilled a part of your task your opponent did not fulfull
2.2 the winner of part 1 always has to win 4 sets in a vs b overall while the loser of part 1 can advance with winning just two
On April 15 2012 10:31 Toxi78 wrote: i don't even understand why we have to explain to idiots the same things over and over again. why is such thread not closed on sight? if you fail to think in a logical way, it is not my duty to explain to you why you are WRONG. I don't even understand why we have to deal with idiots who contribute nothing but insults to a discussion. why are people like that not banned on sight? if you fail to contribute in a sensible way, it is not my duty to explain to you why you are STUPID.
|
Actually no because it doesn't change the given task and its requirements, you still have to win 2 out of a maximum of 3 games, everything else is just catering to the mental aspect. What? you're contradicting yourself here. The fact that you still have to win 2 out of max of 3 games, winning the first one puts you one step closer to that; so how is it not always an advantage to win the first set regardless of who you play next? At worst, if you lose to a super godly opponent next, you still have 1 win, whereas if you're the loser of the first match, you would have to beat your next opponent to even get that first win.
Your Lakers-Celtics argument is not applicable because in basketball you have 3 layers points, sets and matches while you have only two in sc2 sets and matches. Adding a 3rd layer to sc2 would mean carrying over an army or economy advantage into the next set.
The group stages is a 3 layer points too, games, sets, and tallies of sets (first to get 2 sets to advance). SC2: Games wins you sets, and winning multiple sets lets you advance from the group Basketball: Points wins you games, and winning multiple games lets you advance from the set
|
On April 15 2012 10:33 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:28 Fubi wrote:1.1) I didn't and if you are not allowed to consider mindset you can't say that A has his back against the wall, because the objective doesn't change just his situation does, the task in itself does not get easier or harder, Player B just fulfilled part of it already We're not talking about mindset here when we say "he has his back against the wall". It simply means if he loses one more set, he is out. While the winner can still lose 2 more sets. 2 is always greater than 1. See? It's a math thing, an absolute advantage that is always true, not something that is subjective like "mind sets" 1.2) I never thought about a more tired aspect, i don't care about that, don't know where that is coming from Was just an example of subjective advantages, many people like to use this in debates for extended series. 1.3) If you want to take the performance of the whole group stage into account you have to evaluate each players way to A vs B Part II otherwise you oversimplify it by just saying, meh they are both at equal scores. And we did consider their ways to it. A won his first and lost his 2nd set, while B lost his first and won his 2nd set: therefore they are both exactly even at that stage, so neither should be given an advantage or disadvantage. 2.1) Winner earned it and as i said the task remains the same which is why that advantage should never come back to bite the winners ass The advantage never comes back to bite the winner's ass. As I have explained it in the previous post, winning the first set is ALWAYS ALWAYS better than losing the first set, regardless if he has to play a better or worse opponent. 2.2) That wouldn't be changed by the extended series Extended series does change the balance of the game systematically. Because now only ONE player in the whole tournament has to win a set by winning 3 games. Sure, whoever wins, will still end up 2-1 set score and advance, but one of the players has to win 3-4 games for their 2nd set, while no one else has to. 1.1 Being condescending doesn't help your argument, please try to stay objective on this matter even though we disagree with each other. Losing the 1st set just means that Player A had to use his out earlier, doesn't mean he has less, 2 out of 3 still stays 2 out of 3. 1.2 I did not like to use it which is why it had no place in our argument 1.3 They are not even because they had to go different ways, that is a fact, looking at the score and seeing both have a score of 1-1 is an oversimplification 2.1 winning the first set is better than losing the first set that is true, but only because you already fulfilled a part of your task your opponent did not fulfull 2.2 the winner of part 1 always has to win 4 sets in a vs b overall while the loser of part 1 can advance with winning just two Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:31 Toxi78 wrote: i don't even understand why we have to explain to idiots the same things over and over again. why is such thread not closed on sight? if you fail to think in a logical way, it is not my duty to explain to you why you are WRONG. I don't even understand why we have to deal with idiots who contribute nothing but insults to a discussion. why are people like that not banned on sight? if you fail to contribute in a sensible way, it is your duty to stay quiet.
how many times has this been discussed? let me say, over a thousand times, during each MLG. so now this guy comes up with the genious idea to have extended series in GSL. awesome, really didn't think of that, must be some kind of einstein. gomtv organizes their tournament the way they want to. what is this thread going to contribute? are you realistically thinking that gomtv will change their tournament format? no they won't. so in the end we are just discussing the extended series rules AGAIN. how many threads are there about that? enough. enough is enough.
|
I used to hate extended series, but the more I see it, the more it seems like the fairest way of determing the better player. The only problem is the effect is has on the disadvantaged players' psyche going into the second series.
|
On April 15 2012 10:44 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +Actually no because it doesn't change the given task and its requirements, you still have to win 2 out of a maximum of 3 games, everything else is just catering to the mental aspect. What? you're contradicting yourself here. The fact that you still have to win 2 out of max of 3 games, winning the first one puts you one step closer to that; so how is it not always an advantage to win the first set regardless of who you play next? At worst, if you lose to a super godly opponent next, you still have 1 win, whereas if you're the loser of the first match, you would have to beat your next opponent to even get that first win. Show nested quote +Your Lakers-Celtics argument is not applicable because in basketball you have 3 layers points, sets and matches while you have only two in sc2 sets and matches. Adding a 3rd layer to sc2 would mean carrying over an army or economy advantage into the next set.
The group stages is a 3 layer points too, games, sets, and tallies of sets (first to get 2 sets to advance). SC2: Games wins you sets, and winning multiple sets lets you advance from the group Basketball: Points wins you games, and winning multiple games lets you advance from the set
1.) The task in itself does not get easier overall it is just partly fulfilled already. In that regard you are ahead of your opponent but as i said that was earned in every way and this advantage can be lost in a vs b part 2 which means at that point both are even regarding that. But the loser of part 1 most of the time had to play the underperforming player which means in part 2 that win of the first game contributes nothing but that point even though it should!
2.) Basketball: Points -> games -> match -> advancing through playoff stage Starcraft2: Advantages -> games -> match -> advancing through groupstage In Starcraft2 we never talked about advantages which is the equivalent to points because it helps you win the game in a similar way points do.
|
On April 15 2012 10:52 SeraKuDA wrote: I used to hate extended series, but the more I see it, the more it seems like the fairest way of determing the better player. The only problem is the effect is has on the disadvantaged players' psyche going into the second series. It would make sense if it was only these 2 players but it isn't. there is another x amount of players going on so you cannot simply have rules to get the fairest way of determing the better player between 2 and not taking in account everything else.
|
On April 15 2012 10:46 Toxi78 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:33 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 10:28 Fubi wrote:1.1) I didn't and if you are not allowed to consider mindset you can't say that A has his back against the wall, because the objective doesn't change just his situation does, the task in itself does not get easier or harder, Player B just fulfilled part of it already We're not talking about mindset here when we say "he has his back against the wall". It simply means if he loses one more set, he is out. While the winner can still lose 2 more sets. 2 is always greater than 1. See? It's a math thing, an absolute advantage that is always true, not something that is subjective like "mind sets" 1.2) I never thought about a more tired aspect, i don't care about that, don't know where that is coming from Was just an example of subjective advantages, many people like to use this in debates for extended series. 1.3) If you want to take the performance of the whole group stage into account you have to evaluate each players way to A vs B Part II otherwise you oversimplify it by just saying, meh they are both at equal scores. And we did consider their ways to it. A won his first and lost his 2nd set, while B lost his first and won his 2nd set: therefore they are both exactly even at that stage, so neither should be given an advantage or disadvantage. 2.1) Winner earned it and as i said the task remains the same which is why that advantage should never come back to bite the winners ass The advantage never comes back to bite the winner's ass. As I have explained it in the previous post, winning the first set is ALWAYS ALWAYS better than losing the first set, regardless if he has to play a better or worse opponent. 2.2) That wouldn't be changed by the extended series Extended series does change the balance of the game systematically. Because now only ONE player in the whole tournament has to win a set by winning 3 games. Sure, whoever wins, will still end up 2-1 set score and advance, but one of the players has to win 3-4 games for their 2nd set, while no one else has to. 1.1 Being condescending doesn't help your argument, please try to stay objective on this matter even though we disagree with each other. Losing the 1st set just means that Player A had to use his out earlier, doesn't mean he has less, 2 out of 3 still stays 2 out of 3. 1.2 I did not like to use it which is why it had no place in our argument 1.3 They are not even because they had to go different ways, that is a fact, looking at the score and seeing both have a score of 1-1 is an oversimplification 2.1 winning the first set is better than losing the first set that is true, but only because you already fulfilled a part of your task your opponent did not fulfull 2.2 the winner of part 1 always has to win 4 sets in a vs b overall while the loser of part 1 can advance with winning just two On April 15 2012 10:31 Toxi78 wrote: i don't even understand why we have to explain to idiots the same things over and over again. why is such thread not closed on sight? if you fail to think in a logical way, it is not my duty to explain to you why you are WRONG. I don't even understand why we have to deal with idiots who contribute nothing but insults to a discussion. why are people like that not banned on sight? if you fail to contribute in a sensible way, it is your duty to stay quiet. how many times has this been discussed? let me say, over a thousand times, during each MLG. so now this guy comes up with the genious idea to have extended series in GSL. awesome, really didn't think of that, must be some kind of einstein. gomtv organizes their tournament the way they want to. what is this thread going to contribute? are you realistically thinking that gomtv will change their tournament format? no they won't. so in the end we are just discussing the extended series rules AGAIN. how many threads are there about that? enough. enough is enough. That might be your opinion, but preventing discussions like this should be done by not taking part in them if you think that discussing these topics should be avoided and not by telling other tl.net members they are idiots. If a topic is deemed unworthy of tl.net mods will close it, telling them what to do is not your job.
On April 15 2012 10:55 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:52 SeraKuDA wrote: I used to hate extended series, but the more I see it, the more it seems like the fairest way of determing the better player. The only problem is the effect is has on the disadvantaged players' psyche going into the second series. It would make sense if it was only these 2 players but it isn't. there is another x amount of players going on so you cannot simply have rules to get the fairest way of determing the better player between 2 and not taking in account everything else. If two players play each other it is always to determine who is the better one of both, which is why extended series do make sense in that case.
|
1.1 Being condescending doesn't help your argument, please try to stay objective on this matter even though we disagree with each other. Losing the 1st set just means that Player A had to use his out earlier, doesn't mean he has less, 2 out of 3 still stays 2 out of 3. Again, look at the bolded part, it's somewhat contradicting. We're talking about AFTER the first encounter correct? if A loses first set, he has ONE out left, where as B still has two. Yes they both started with two, but that becomes irrelevant at this point: A has ONE left, B has TWO. 2 > 1, therefore, advantage. They both started out having to win 2/3, but NOW, B has to win 1/2, while A has to win 2/2. Having to win 1/2 > 2/2, therefore, advantage. I really don't understand how you can disagree here. It's an an absolute, objective advantage for winning first set, regardless of who your next opponents are.
1.3 They are not even because they had to go different ways, that is a fact, looking at the score and seeing both have a score of 1-1 is an oversimplification Of course everyone has to go different ways in a tournament, otherwise there is no point of the tournament, they should of just did a 1v1 showmatch. But not everyone can play everyone in a tournament, unless you make it into a 1 year league like NBA/NHL, therefore, players will be playing against different players. Yes, some will get harder road, some will get easier opponents, etc. But like I said before, you can not objectively define who had a harder road or easier road. Therefore, how many opponents you beat is the only thing that you can objectively and systematically look at.
2.1 winning the first set is better than losing the first set that is true, but only because you already fulfilled a part of your task your opponent did not fulfull Exactly, I'm glad you agreed on that. Which means that the winner of the first match already gained an absolute objective advantage from winning, and vice versa for the loser. Therefore, if they meet again, there should be no other advantage/disadvantage because those have already been distributed after the first set.
2.2 the winner of part 1 always has to win 4 sets in a vs b overall while the loser of part 1 can advance with winning just two What? Winner of part 1 has to win 1 more set, while the loser has to win 2 more sets. I don't understand where you're getting 4 from. But if you meant games, then the loser has to win 4 to advance as well. He won 2 from his 2nd opponent, and 2 more from their next rematch against his first opponent.
|
They both lost the same number of games. I dont see why one should have the advantage going in, that's basically double counting the victory.
|
On April 15 2012 10:57 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +1.1 Being condescending doesn't help your argument, please try to stay objective on this matter even though we disagree with each other. Losing the 1st set just means that Player A had to use his out earlier, doesn't mean he has less, 2 out of 3 still stays 2 out of 3. Again, look at the bolded part, it's somewhat contradicting. We're talking about AFTER the first encounter correct? if A loses first set, he has ONE out left, where as B still has two. Yes they both started with two, but that becomes irrelevant at this point: A has ONE left, B has TWO. 2 > 1, therefore, advantage. They both started out having to win 2/3, but NOW, B has to win 1/2, while A has to win 2/2. Having to win 1/2 > 2/2, therefore, advantage. I really don't understand how you can disagree here. It's an an absolute, objective advantage for winning first set, regardless of who your next opponents are. Show nested quote +1.3 They are not even because they had to go different ways, that is a fact, looking at the score and seeing both have a score of 1-1 is an oversimplification Of course everyone has to go different ways in a tournament, otherwise there is no point of the tournament, they should of just did a 1v1 showmatch. But not everyone can play everyone in a tournament, unless you make it into a 1 year league like NBA/NHL, therefore, players will be playing against different players. Yes, some will get harder road, some will get easier opponents, etc. But like I said before, you can not objectively define who had a harder road or easier road. Therefore, how many opponents you beat is the only thing that you can objectively and systematically look at. Show nested quote +2.1 winning the first set is better than losing the first set that is true, but only because you already fulfilled a part of your task your opponent did not fulfull Exactly, I'm glad you agreed on that. Which means that the winner of the first match already gained an absolute objective advantage from winning, and vice versa for the loser. Therefore, if they meet again, there should be no other advantage/disadvantage because those have already been distributed after the first set. Show nested quote +2.2 the winner of part 1 always has to win 4 sets in a vs b overall while the loser of part 1 can advance with winning just two What? Winner of part 1 has to win 1 more set, while the loser has to win 2 more sets. I don't understand where you're getting 4 from. But if you meant games, then the loser has to win 4 to advance as well. He won 2 from his 2nd opponent, and 2 more from their next rematch against his first opponent.
The thing is that 1/2 vs 2/2 doesn't matter when the extended series rule comes into play because at that point it is 1/1 for both players. Both have to win to advance.
The point is that using an extended series rule lets the better player advance more often which is fair, and that is exactly why the rule should be used.
And in terms of the set thingie, i think we didn't use the words in the same way. In A vs B overall the winner of part one always has to win 4-X while the loser of part one can win x-2
|
On April 15 2012 10:57 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:46 Toxi78 wrote:On April 15 2012 10:33 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 10:28 Fubi wrote:1.1) I didn't and if you are not allowed to consider mindset you can't say that A has his back against the wall, because the objective doesn't change just his situation does, the task in itself does not get easier or harder, Player B just fulfilled part of it already We're not talking about mindset here when we say "he has his back against the wall". It simply means if he loses one more set, he is out. While the winner can still lose 2 more sets. 2 is always greater than 1. See? It's a math thing, an absolute advantage that is always true, not something that is subjective like "mind sets" 1.2) I never thought about a more tired aspect, i don't care about that, don't know where that is coming from Was just an example of subjective advantages, many people like to use this in debates for extended series. 1.3) If you want to take the performance of the whole group stage into account you have to evaluate each players way to A vs B Part II otherwise you oversimplify it by just saying, meh they are both at equal scores. And we did consider their ways to it. A won his first and lost his 2nd set, while B lost his first and won his 2nd set: therefore they are both exactly even at that stage, so neither should be given an advantage or disadvantage. 2.1) Winner earned it and as i said the task remains the same which is why that advantage should never come back to bite the winners ass The advantage never comes back to bite the winner's ass. As I have explained it in the previous post, winning the first set is ALWAYS ALWAYS better than losing the first set, regardless if he has to play a better or worse opponent. 2.2) That wouldn't be changed by the extended series Extended series does change the balance of the game systematically. Because now only ONE player in the whole tournament has to win a set by winning 3 games. Sure, whoever wins, will still end up 2-1 set score and advance, but one of the players has to win 3-4 games for their 2nd set, while no one else has to. 1.1 Being condescending doesn't help your argument, please try to stay objective on this matter even though we disagree with each other. Losing the 1st set just means that Player A had to use his out earlier, doesn't mean he has less, 2 out of 3 still stays 2 out of 3. 1.2 I did not like to use it which is why it had no place in our argument 1.3 They are not even because they had to go different ways, that is a fact, looking at the score and seeing both have a score of 1-1 is an oversimplification 2.1 winning the first set is better than losing the first set that is true, but only because you already fulfilled a part of your task your opponent did not fulfull 2.2 the winner of part 1 always has to win 4 sets in a vs b overall while the loser of part 1 can advance with winning just two On April 15 2012 10:31 Toxi78 wrote: i don't even understand why we have to explain to idiots the same things over and over again. why is such thread not closed on sight? if you fail to think in a logical way, it is not my duty to explain to you why you are WRONG. I don't even understand why we have to deal with idiots who contribute nothing but insults to a discussion. why are people like that not banned on sight? if you fail to contribute in a sensible way, it is your duty to stay quiet. how many times has this been discussed? let me say, over a thousand times, during each MLG. so now this guy comes up with the genious idea to have extended series in GSL. awesome, really didn't think of that, must be some kind of einstein. gomtv organizes their tournament the way they want to. what is this thread going to contribute? are you realistically thinking that gomtv will change their tournament format? no they won't. so in the end we are just discussing the extended series rules AGAIN. how many threads are there about that? enough. enough is enough. That might be your opinion, but preventing discussions like this should be done by not taking part in them if you think that discussing these topics should be avoided and not by telling other tl.net members they are idiots. If a topic is deemed unworthy of tl.net mods will close it, telling them what to do is not your job. Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:55 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 10:52 SeraKuDA wrote: I used to hate extended series, but the more I see it, the more it seems like the fairest way of determing the better player. The only problem is the effect is has on the disadvantaged players' psyche going into the second series. It would make sense if it was only these 2 players but it isn't. there is another x amount of players going on so you cannot simply have rules to get the fairest way of determing the better player between 2 and not taking in account everything else. If two players play each other it is always to determine who is the better one of both, which is why extended series do make sense in that case. You misunderstood me. While what you say is true your extended series rules messes with the rest of the tournament in the way you make a victory count double. if it was only these 2 players it is fine but it aint.
|
1.) The task in itself does not get easier overall it is just partly fulfilled already. In that regard you are ahead of your opponent but as i said that was earned in every way and this advantage can be lost in a vs b part 2 which means at that point both are even regarding that. But the loser of part 1 most of the time had to play the underperforming player which means in part 2 that win of the first game contributes nothing but that point even though it should!
The advantage is never lost. His first win gave him a CHANCE to advance. It isn't a guarantee chance. Even if he has to play the godliest opponent, and he only has 20% chance to win, that is still a 20% chance to advance from the group.
The loser of the first set NEVER had this chance to advance, not even 0.1%. In fact, it's even worst, he has a CHANCE to be eliminated as his punishment. Even if he plays a bad opponent that he will win 80% of the times, he is still punished from his first lost by having a 20% chance to be eliminated.
Therefore, that advantage of winning the first set is never lost. One player is rewarded with the chance to advance, while the other player never did, and is instead punished with a chance to be eliminated.
2.) Basketball: Points -> games -> match -> advancing through playoff stage Starcraft2: Advantages -> games -> match -> advancing through groupstage In Starcraft2 we never talked about advantages which is the equivalent to points because it helps you win the game in a similar way points do. The bolded part, winning 2 games to win a match doesn't allow you to advance through group stage, it just gives you one point in your set score. You need 2 set scores to advance. So it should be like Advantages -> games -> match -> set -> advance
Same as basketball: Points wins you the game, games wins you the matches in a set, but you only have to win one set to advance. So same number of layers
I don't see how you can attribute in-game advantages as a point itself, as that can't be realistically quantified. Just like in basketball, soccer, hockey, etc, you can have advantages as well, such as being in good positioning, having good power play, being in less of foul-troubles, etc.
|
From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it?
|
On April 15 2012 11:05 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 10:57 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 10:46 Toxi78 wrote:On April 15 2012 10:33 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 10:28 Fubi wrote:1.1) I didn't and if you are not allowed to consider mindset you can't say that A has his back against the wall, because the objective doesn't change just his situation does, the task in itself does not get easier or harder, Player B just fulfilled part of it already We're not talking about mindset here when we say "he has his back against the wall". It simply means if he loses one more set, he is out. While the winner can still lose 2 more sets. 2 is always greater than 1. See? It's a math thing, an absolute advantage that is always true, not something that is subjective like "mind sets" 1.2) I never thought about a more tired aspect, i don't care about that, don't know where that is coming from Was just an example of subjective advantages, many people like to use this in debates for extended series. 1.3) If you want to take the performance of the whole group stage into account you have to evaluate each players way to A vs B Part II otherwise you oversimplify it by just saying, meh they are both at equal scores. And we did consider their ways to it. A won his first and lost his 2nd set, while B lost his first and won his 2nd set: therefore they are both exactly even at that stage, so neither should be given an advantage or disadvantage. 2.1) Winner earned it and as i said the task remains the same which is why that advantage should never come back to bite the winners ass The advantage never comes back to bite the winner's ass. As I have explained it in the previous post, winning the first set is ALWAYS ALWAYS better than losing the first set, regardless if he has to play a better or worse opponent. 2.2) That wouldn't be changed by the extended series Extended series does change the balance of the game systematically. Because now only ONE player in the whole tournament has to win a set by winning 3 games. Sure, whoever wins, will still end up 2-1 set score and advance, but one of the players has to win 3-4 games for their 2nd set, while no one else has to. 1.1 Being condescending doesn't help your argument, please try to stay objective on this matter even though we disagree with each other. Losing the 1st set just means that Player A had to use his out earlier, doesn't mean he has less, 2 out of 3 still stays 2 out of 3. 1.2 I did not like to use it which is why it had no place in our argument 1.3 They are not even because they had to go different ways, that is a fact, looking at the score and seeing both have a score of 1-1 is an oversimplification 2.1 winning the first set is better than losing the first set that is true, but only because you already fulfilled a part of your task your opponent did not fulfull 2.2 the winner of part 1 always has to win 4 sets in a vs b overall while the loser of part 1 can advance with winning just two On April 15 2012 10:31 Toxi78 wrote: i don't even understand why we have to explain to idiots the same things over and over again. why is such thread not closed on sight? if you fail to think in a logical way, it is not my duty to explain to you why you are WRONG. I don't even understand why we have to deal with idiots who contribute nothing but insults to a discussion. why are people like that not banned on sight? if you fail to contribute in a sensible way, it is your duty to stay quiet. how many times has this been discussed? let me say, over a thousand times, during each MLG. so now this guy comes up with the genious idea to have extended series in GSL. awesome, really didn't think of that, must be some kind of einstein. gomtv organizes their tournament the way they want to. what is this thread going to contribute? are you realistically thinking that gomtv will change their tournament format? no they won't. so in the end we are just discussing the extended series rules AGAIN. how many threads are there about that? enough. enough is enough. That might be your opinion, but preventing discussions like this should be done by not taking part in them if you think that discussing these topics should be avoided and not by telling other tl.net members they are idiots. If a topic is deemed unworthy of tl.net mods will close it, telling them what to do is not your job. On April 15 2012 10:55 Assirra wrote:On April 15 2012 10:52 SeraKuDA wrote: I used to hate extended series, but the more I see it, the more it seems like the fairest way of determing the better player. The only problem is the effect is has on the disadvantaged players' psyche going into the second series. It would make sense if it was only these 2 players but it isn't. there is another x amount of players going on so you cannot simply have rules to get the fairest way of determing the better player between 2 and not taking in account everything else. If two players play each other it is always to determine who is the better one of both, which is why extended series do make sense in that case. You misunderstood me. While what you say is true your extended series rules messes with the rest of the tournament in the way you make a victory count double. if it was only these 2 players it is fine but it aint. But at the time of the match it is only about those 2 players. All others are either eliminated or not concerned with the result of this match because the only thing for them is that one of both players advance
|
The thing is that 1/2 vs 2/2 doesn't matter when the extended series rule comes into play because at that point it is 1/1 for both players. Both have to win to advance. I'm lost here, that 1/2 vs 2/2 thing is an advantage that happens before the extended series.
The point is that using an extended series rule lets the better player advance more often which is fair, and that is exactly why the rule should be used.
And in terms of the set thingie, i think we didn't use the words in the same way. In A vs B overall the winner of part one always has to win 4-X while the loser of part one can win x-2 We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if A's record is 3-2 vs B 0-2 vs C
While B is 2-3 vs A 2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period.
|
We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if A's record is 3-2 vs B 0-2 vs C
While B is 2-3 vs A 2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period.
Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not to be concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate to rank them properly.
|
Whichever the format the OSL uses, the GSL should.
|
On April 15 2012 11:12 Bazinga wrote: From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it? What? In basketball, you win positional advantages to score these points, which in turns wins you the game. you win 4 games in a Bo7 set to advance to the next round of the playoff. 1) positional advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance
In sc2 you win these positional/upgrade advantages to win you the games, which if you win 2/3 games, you win a set. you win 2 sets to advance to the next round. 1) advantages 2) games 3) sets 4) win 2 sets to advance
see, same layer.
|
On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if A's record is 3-2 vs B 0-2 vs C
While B is 2-3 vs A 2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period. Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL.
The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account.
|
On April 15 2012 11:18 Meteora.GB wrote:Whichever the format the OSL uses, the GSL should.
So GSL should use Best of 1?
|
On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:12 Bazinga wrote: From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it? What? In basketball, you win positional advantages to score these points, which in turns wins you the game. you win 4 games in a Bo7 set to advance to the next round of the playoff. 1) positional advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance In sc2 you win these positional/upgrade advantages to win you the games, which if you win 2/3 games, you win a set. you win 2 sets to advance to the next round. 1) advantages 2) games 3) sets 4) win 2 sets to advance see, same layer.
Basketball 1) advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance
Starcraft 2 1) advantages 2) NULL 3) games 4) wins the set to advance
is what i can agree with because 1) and 2) are gained within a game that is why I packed them together. You can not compare points to games because a game is enveloping the whole amount of time that is played within it and a point/advantage is sth gained within that amount of time
|
On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if A's record is 3-2 vs B 0-2 vs C
While B is 2-3 vs A 2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period. Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL. The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account.
If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player.
|
On April 15 2012 11:27 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:12 Bazinga wrote: From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it? What? In basketball, you win positional advantages to score these points, which in turns wins you the game. you win 4 games in a Bo7 set to advance to the next round of the playoff. 1) positional advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance In sc2 you win these positional/upgrade advantages to win you the games, which if you win 2/3 games, you win a set. you win 2 sets to advance to the next round. 1) advantages 2) games 3) sets 4) win 2 sets to advance see, same layer. Basketball 1) advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance Starcraft 2 1) advantages 2) NULL 3) games 4) wins the set to advance is what i can agree with because 1) and 2) are gained within a game that is why I packed them together. You can not compare points to games because a game is enveloping the whole amount of time that is played within it and a point/advantage is sth gained within that amount of time Huh? But we're not comparing them one to one directly, we're comparing the number of layers these 2 have in total. They both have a 3 layer scoring system, simple as that. Advantages is not a scoring system because you can not quantified that.
|
On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if A's record is 3-2 vs B 0-2 vs C
While B is 2-3 vs A 2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period. Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL. The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair.
The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head?
|
On April 15 2012 11:33 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:27 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:12 Bazinga wrote: From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it? What? In basketball, you win positional advantages to score these points, which in turns wins you the game. you win 4 games in a Bo7 set to advance to the next round of the playoff. 1) positional advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance In sc2 you win these positional/upgrade advantages to win you the games, which if you win 2/3 games, you win a set. you win 2 sets to advance to the next round. 1) advantages 2) games 3) sets 4) win 2 sets to advance see, same layer. Basketball 1) advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance Starcraft 2 1) advantages 2) NULL 3) games 4) wins the set to advance is what i can agree with because 1) and 2) are gained within a game that is why I packed them together. You can not compare points to games because a game is enveloping the whole amount of time that is played within it and a point/advantage is sth gained within that amount of time Huh? But we're not comparing them one to one directly, we're comparing the number of layers these 2 have in total. They both have a 3 layer scoring system, simple as that. Advantages is not a scoring system because you can not quantified that.
Another very very simple way to look at this is to treat each games as "points" or "scores" like in every other sports.
In Basketball for example, the points you get in the game is solely for measuring who wins that game. The score never carries over to the next game. The only advantage of getting more score is to win the game, and by winning the games, you get a permanent advantage of being one step closer to winning the tournament.
This is the same in Hockey, in Football, in Tennis, in soccer, in every sport. You're trying to argue that in the NBA, if Lakers beats Celtics in game 1 by a score of 90-40, then Celtics came back and won game 2 and 3 both by 89-90, Lakers should win the series? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? And neither does it make sense for SC Here you are comparing them one to one directly and that is why the discussion about that topic started. In this example it is Lakers 1 - 2 Celtics and 288 - 220.
Genius 2 - 3 MKP is the equivalent to 1 - 2 not the equivalent to 288 - 220. do you understand now why i disagreed?
|
On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if A's record is 3-2 vs B 0-2 vs C
While B is 2-3 vs A 2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period. Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL. The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair. The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head? The proposition of the OP only regards the GSL group stage format which is the setting where I think an extended series rule would be the correct thing to do. Using a gsl like format for bigger groups would be inherently unfair in my opinion which is why I think that such a setting is irrelevant.
|
On April 15 2012 11:41 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:33 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:27 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:12 Bazinga wrote: From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it? What? In basketball, you win positional advantages to score these points, which in turns wins you the game. you win 4 games in a Bo7 set to advance to the next round of the playoff. 1) positional advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance In sc2 you win these positional/upgrade advantages to win you the games, which if you win 2/3 games, you win a set. you win 2 sets to advance to the next round. 1) advantages 2) games 3) sets 4) win 2 sets to advance see, same layer. Basketball 1) advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance Starcraft 2 1) advantages 2) NULL 3) games 4) wins the set to advance is what i can agree with because 1) and 2) are gained within a game that is why I packed them together. You can not compare points to games because a game is enveloping the whole amount of time that is played within it and a point/advantage is sth gained within that amount of time Huh? But we're not comparing them one to one directly, we're comparing the number of layers these 2 have in total. They both have a 3 layer scoring system, simple as that. Advantages is not a scoring system because you can not quantified that. Show nested quote +Another very very simple way to look at this is to treat each games as "points" or "scores" like in every other sports.
In Basketball for example, the points you get in the game is solely for measuring who wins that game. The score never carries over to the next game. The only advantage of getting more score is to win the game, and by winning the games, you get a permanent advantage of being one step closer to winning the tournament.
This is the same in Hockey, in Football, in Tennis, in soccer, in every sport. You're trying to argue that in the NBA, if Lakers beats Celtics in game 1 by a score of 90-40, then Celtics came back and won game 2 and 3 both by 89-90, Lakers should win the series? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? And neither does it make sense for SC Here you are comparing them one to one directly and that is why the discussion about that topic started. In this example it is Lakers 1 - 2 Celtics and 288 - 220. Genius 2 - 3 MKP is the equivalent to 1 - 2 not the equivalent to 288 - 220. do you understand now why i disagreed? Genius 2 - 3 MKP is equivalent to 288 -220, not in a direct term, I was just using it as a direct comparison to their first layer, I'm not saying the first layer is the exact same technical substance.
Fact of the matter is, both has 3 layer system. You must score points in all 3 layers to advance. None of these points from the lower layer ever carries over to their next meeting.
The fact that you can not find any other sports or tournament or competitive formats in the world that uses extended series aside from MLG, is a pretty big anecdotal prove in itself that it isn't the best measure of fairness.
|
On April 15 2012 11:46 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:33 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:27 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:12 Bazinga wrote: From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it? What? In basketball, you win positional advantages to score these points, which in turns wins you the game. you win 4 games in a Bo7 set to advance to the next round of the playoff. 1) positional advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance In sc2 you win these positional/upgrade advantages to win you the games, which if you win 2/3 games, you win a set. you win 2 sets to advance to the next round. 1) advantages 2) games 3) sets 4) win 2 sets to advance see, same layer. Basketball 1) advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance Starcraft 2 1) advantages 2) NULL 3) games 4) wins the set to advance is what i can agree with because 1) and 2) are gained within a game that is why I packed them together. You can not compare points to games because a game is enveloping the whole amount of time that is played within it and a point/advantage is sth gained within that amount of time Huh? But we're not comparing them one to one directly, we're comparing the number of layers these 2 have in total. They both have a 3 layer scoring system, simple as that. Advantages is not a scoring system because you can not quantified that. Another very very simple way to look at this is to treat each games as "points" or "scores" like in every other sports.
In Basketball for example, the points you get in the game is solely for measuring who wins that game. The score never carries over to the next game. The only advantage of getting more score is to win the game, and by winning the games, you get a permanent advantage of being one step closer to winning the tournament.
This is the same in Hockey, in Football, in Tennis, in soccer, in every sport. You're trying to argue that in the NBA, if Lakers beats Celtics in game 1 by a score of 90-40, then Celtics came back and won game 2 and 3 both by 89-90, Lakers should win the series? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? And neither does it make sense for SC Here you are comparing them one to one directly and that is why the discussion about that topic started. In this example it is Lakers 1 - 2 Celtics and 288 - 220. Genius 2 - 3 MKP is the equivalent to 1 - 2 not the equivalent to 288 - 220. do you understand now why i disagreed? Genius 2 - 3 MKP is equivalent to 288 -220, not in a direct term, I was just using it as a direct comparison to their first layer, I'm not saying the first layer is the exact same technical substance. Fact of the matter is, both has 3 layer system. You must score points in all 3 layers to advance. None of these points from the lower layer ever carries over to their next meeting. The fact that you can not find any other sports or tournament or competitive formats in the world that uses extended series aside from MLG, is a pretty big anecdotal prove in itself that it isn't the best measure of fairness.
There is no such thing like anecdotal proof and in my opinion you can't compare points and games because they do not have the same characteristics. It would be like comparing apples and oranges just because both things are fruits.
|
On April 15 2012 11:44 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if A's record is 3-2 vs B 0-2 vs C
While B is 2-3 vs A 2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period. Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL. The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair. The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head? The proposition of the OP only regards the GSL group stage format which is the setting where I think an extended series rule would be the correct thing to do. Using a gsl like format for bigger groups would be inherently unfair in my opinion which is why I think that such a setting is irrelevant. The GSL group stage is the exact same idea as my extreme example tho. Instead of having 10 people, and each having to play 5, they have 4 people and each has to play 2. A has head to head lead vs B, but B has beaten others in the group while A hasn't. It my extreme example, B beaten 4 others, while A lost to 4 others. In the GSL example, B beaten 1 other, while A lost to 1 other.
It's the same concept, I just expanded it to a more extreme case to try to let you see why you can't ignore the other games in the group and only look at their head to head and determine who should advance.
|
Extended series can't never be the solution to anything. They could make changes, but for me it's okay as it is.
|
I think it is incredibly silly to refer to someone as "the better player" I would say that in the last GSL season Genius WAS the better player over MarineKing
The player who wins in the first battle already has an advantage. In the case of Genius vs MKP MKP's advantage was that he could potentially win the group in the next match, Genius' disadvantage was that he faced elimination in the next match and then in the Final Match(vs MKP) he had to play back to back games
Game 1(Genius vs MKP) Game 2(Random1 vs Random2) Game 3(MKP vs Random1) Game 4(Genius vs Random2) Game 5(Genius vs MKP)
In the GSL format MKP also got a rest in the losers match. I also absolutely despise extended series in MLG as well as an advantage has already been gained by the player who wins in the winner bracket as they get to lose a match before going out of the whole tournament, in pools winning gives you an advantage of bolstering your score for Championship Sunday and making you appear further up the bracket. People say "BUT YOU CAN'T COMPARE E-SPORTEU TO REAL SPORTS" but in this case it is perfectly comparable as it is not the specifics of the ruleset which are being compared but the simple fact that no other sport or tournament on earth uses it. But fuck it it worked for Halo it must work for SC2+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 15 2012 11:49 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:46 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:33 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:27 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:12 Bazinga wrote: From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it? What? In basketball, you win positional advantages to score these points, which in turns wins you the game. you win 4 games in a Bo7 set to advance to the next round of the playoff. 1) positional advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance In sc2 you win these positional/upgrade advantages to win you the games, which if you win 2/3 games, you win a set. you win 2 sets to advance to the next round. 1) advantages 2) games 3) sets 4) win 2 sets to advance see, same layer. Basketball 1) advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance Starcraft 2 1) advantages 2) NULL 3) games 4) wins the set to advance is what i can agree with because 1) and 2) are gained within a game that is why I packed them together. You can not compare points to games because a game is enveloping the whole amount of time that is played within it and a point/advantage is sth gained within that amount of time Huh? But we're not comparing them one to one directly, we're comparing the number of layers these 2 have in total. They both have a 3 layer scoring system, simple as that. Advantages is not a scoring system because you can not quantified that. Another very very simple way to look at this is to treat each games as "points" or "scores" like in every other sports.
In Basketball for example, the points you get in the game is solely for measuring who wins that game. The score never carries over to the next game. The only advantage of getting more score is to win the game, and by winning the games, you get a permanent advantage of being one step closer to winning the tournament.
This is the same in Hockey, in Football, in Tennis, in soccer, in every sport. You're trying to argue that in the NBA, if Lakers beats Celtics in game 1 by a score of 90-40, then Celtics came back and won game 2 and 3 both by 89-90, Lakers should win the series? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? And neither does it make sense for SC Here you are comparing them one to one directly and that is why the discussion about that topic started. In this example it is Lakers 1 - 2 Celtics and 288 - 220. Genius 2 - 3 MKP is the equivalent to 1 - 2 not the equivalent to 288 - 220. do you understand now why i disagreed? Genius 2 - 3 MKP is equivalent to 288 -220, not in a direct term, I was just using it as a direct comparison to their first layer, I'm not saying the first layer is the exact same technical substance. Fact of the matter is, both has 3 layer system. You must score points in all 3 layers to advance. None of these points from the lower layer ever carries over to their next meeting. The fact that you can not find any other sports or tournament or competitive formats in the world that uses extended series aside from MLG, is a pretty big anecdotal prove in itself that it isn't the best measure of fairness. There is no such thing like anecdotal proof and in my opinion you can't compare points and games because they do not have the same characteristics. It would be like comparing apples and oranges just because both things are fruits. Anecdotal evidence can definitely be used as proves. It's actually what part of our common law system is based around. And I mean, true, it isn't like ABSOLUTE concrete proofs if that is what you technically meant. But it still shows that there must be a reason that no other competition in the world, over the entire life-span of our civilization, have thought about using this extended series system, if it's that fair and if it actually helps find the better players like you said.
|
On April 15 2012 11:49 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:44 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if A's record is 3-2 vs B 0-2 vs C
While B is 2-3 vs A 2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period. Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL. The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair. The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head? The proposition of the OP only regards the GSL group stage format which is the setting where I think an extended series rule would be the correct thing to do. Using a gsl like format for bigger groups would be inherently unfair in my opinion which is why I think that such a setting is irrelevant. The GSL group stage is the exact same idea as my extreme example tho. Instead of having 10 people, and each having to play 5, they have 4 people and each has to play 2. A has head to head lead vs B, but B has beaten others in the group while A hasn't. It my extreme example, B beaten 4 others, while A lost to 4 others. In the GSL example, B beaten 1 other, while A lost to 1 other. It's the same concept, I just expanded it to a more extreme case to try to let you see why you can't ignore the other games in the group and only look at their head to head and determine who should advance.
Ok, i'll play along. . . If you are in a group of ten players and A and B are both at 4-4 while C through J are already assigned to ranks 1-4 and 7-10 you actually have to use a head to head comparison like you do in the gsl format because nothing will ever change the relation of A and B to ranks 1-4 and 7-10. The only thing that changes is the relation between A and B.
|
On April 15 2012 11:54 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:49 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:46 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:33 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:27 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:12 Bazinga wrote: From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it? What? In basketball, you win positional advantages to score these points, which in turns wins you the game. you win 4 games in a Bo7 set to advance to the next round of the playoff. 1) positional advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance In sc2 you win these positional/upgrade advantages to win you the games, which if you win 2/3 games, you win a set. you win 2 sets to advance to the next round. 1) advantages 2) games 3) sets 4) win 2 sets to advance see, same layer. Basketball 1) advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance Starcraft 2 1) advantages 2) NULL 3) games 4) wins the set to advance is what i can agree with because 1) and 2) are gained within a game that is why I packed them together. You can not compare points to games because a game is enveloping the whole amount of time that is played within it and a point/advantage is sth gained within that amount of time Huh? But we're not comparing them one to one directly, we're comparing the number of layers these 2 have in total. They both have a 3 layer scoring system, simple as that. Advantages is not a scoring system because you can not quantified that. Another very very simple way to look at this is to treat each games as "points" or "scores" like in every other sports.
In Basketball for example, the points you get in the game is solely for measuring who wins that game. The score never carries over to the next game. The only advantage of getting more score is to win the game, and by winning the games, you get a permanent advantage of being one step closer to winning the tournament.
This is the same in Hockey, in Football, in Tennis, in soccer, in every sport. You're trying to argue that in the NBA, if Lakers beats Celtics in game 1 by a score of 90-40, then Celtics came back and won game 2 and 3 both by 89-90, Lakers should win the series? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? And neither does it make sense for SC Here you are comparing them one to one directly and that is why the discussion about that topic started. In this example it is Lakers 1 - 2 Celtics and 288 - 220. Genius 2 - 3 MKP is the equivalent to 1 - 2 not the equivalent to 288 - 220. do you understand now why i disagreed? Genius 2 - 3 MKP is equivalent to 288 -220, not in a direct term, I was just using it as a direct comparison to their first layer, I'm not saying the first layer is the exact same technical substance. Fact of the matter is, both has 3 layer system. You must score points in all 3 layers to advance. None of these points from the lower layer ever carries over to their next meeting. The fact that you can not find any other sports or tournament or competitive formats in the world that uses extended series aside from MLG, is a pretty big anecdotal prove in itself that it isn't the best measure of fairness. There is no such thing like anecdotal proof and in my opinion you can't compare points and games because they do not have the same characteristics. It would be like comparing apples and oranges just because both things are fruits. Anecdotal evidence can definitely be used as proves. It's actually what part of our common law system is based around. And I mean, true, it isn't like ABSOLUTE concrete proofs if that is what you technically meant. But it still shows that there must be a reason that no other competition in the world, over the entire life-span of our civilization, have thought about using this extended series system, if it's that fair and if it actually helps find the better players like you said.
Law and science are two very different things, and I do believe that in this case science applies and not law :p. The reason might just be that there is no other sport like starcraft 2 or that traditions persist longer than they should . . . like they always have.
|
On April 15 2012 11:54 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:49 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:44 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if A's record is 3-2 vs B 0-2 vs C
While B is 2-3 vs A 2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period. Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL. The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair. The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head? The proposition of the OP only regards the GSL group stage format which is the setting where I think an extended series rule would be the correct thing to do. Using a gsl like format for bigger groups would be inherently unfair in my opinion which is why I think that such a setting is irrelevant. The GSL group stage is the exact same idea as my extreme example tho. Instead of having 10 people, and each having to play 5, they have 4 people and each has to play 2. A has head to head lead vs B, but B has beaten others in the group while A hasn't. It my extreme example, B beaten 4 others, while A lost to 4 others. In the GSL example, B beaten 1 other, while A lost to 1 other. It's the same concept, I just expanded it to a more extreme case to try to let you see why you can't ignore the other games in the group and only look at their head to head and determine who should advance. Ok, i'll play along. . . If you are in a group of ten players and A and B are both at 4-4 while C through J are already assigned to ranks 1-4 and 7-10 you actually have to use a head to head comparison like you do in the gsl format because nothing will ever change the relation of A and B to ranks 1-4 and 7-10. The only thing that changes is the relation between A and B. Or the 2nd option, to play a tie-breaker set, which is what GSL chose to do.
With your way of doing it, GSL wouldn't need them to play a 2nd time. They would simply go
A vs B: 2-1 B vs C: 2-0 A vs D: 0-2
K at this point, set score for A and B are both 1-1, therefore, we look at their head to head score, which A is 2-1 against B, so A advances (along with D)
|
On April 15 2012 11:57 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:54 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:49 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:44 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if A's record is 3-2 vs B 0-2 vs C
While B is 2-3 vs A 2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period. Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL. The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair. The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head? The proposition of the OP only regards the GSL group stage format which is the setting where I think an extended series rule would be the correct thing to do. Using a gsl like format for bigger groups would be inherently unfair in my opinion which is why I think that such a setting is irrelevant. The GSL group stage is the exact same idea as my extreme example tho. Instead of having 10 people, and each having to play 5, they have 4 people and each has to play 2. A has head to head lead vs B, but B has beaten others in the group while A hasn't. It my extreme example, B beaten 4 others, while A lost to 4 others. In the GSL example, B beaten 1 other, while A lost to 1 other. It's the same concept, I just expanded it to a more extreme case to try to let you see why you can't ignore the other games in the group and only look at their head to head and determine who should advance. Ok, i'll play along. . . If you are in a group of ten players and A and B are both at 4-4 while C through J are already assigned to ranks 1-4 and 7-10 you actually have to use a head to head comparison like you do in the gsl format because nothing will ever change the relation of A and B to ranks 1-4 and 7-10. The only thing that changes is the relation between A and B. Or the 2nd option, to play a tie-breaker set, which is what GSL chose to do. With your way of doing it, GSL wouldn't need them to play a 2nd time. They would simply go A vs B: 2-1 B vs C: 2-0 A vs D: 0-2 K at this point, set score for A and B are both 1-1, therefore, we look at their head to head score, which A is 2-1 against B, so A advances (along with D) That would be the first option i mentioned earlier in the thread and i also said why i do not think that this would be good. If you in this case just play a fresh bo3 you ignore that head to head score, which is like discarding that result. If you instead extend the series you do consider the players first match and you generate content and you can be sure that more likely than with just a fresh bo3 the better player advances
|
On April 15 2012 11:57 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:54 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:49 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:46 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:33 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:27 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:12 Bazinga wrote: From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it? What? In basketball, you win positional advantages to score these points, which in turns wins you the game. you win 4 games in a Bo7 set to advance to the next round of the playoff. 1) positional advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance In sc2 you win these positional/upgrade advantages to win you the games, which if you win 2/3 games, you win a set. you win 2 sets to advance to the next round. 1) advantages 2) games 3) sets 4) win 2 sets to advance see, same layer. Basketball 1) advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance Starcraft 2 1) advantages 2) NULL 3) games 4) wins the set to advance is what i can agree with because 1) and 2) are gained within a game that is why I packed them together. You can not compare points to games because a game is enveloping the whole amount of time that is played within it and a point/advantage is sth gained within that amount of time Huh? But we're not comparing them one to one directly, we're comparing the number of layers these 2 have in total. They both have a 3 layer scoring system, simple as that. Advantages is not a scoring system because you can not quantified that. Another very very simple way to look at this is to treat each games as "points" or "scores" like in every other sports.
In Basketball for example, the points you get in the game is solely for measuring who wins that game. The score never carries over to the next game. The only advantage of getting more score is to win the game, and by winning the games, you get a permanent advantage of being one step closer to winning the tournament.
This is the same in Hockey, in Football, in Tennis, in soccer, in every sport. You're trying to argue that in the NBA, if Lakers beats Celtics in game 1 by a score of 90-40, then Celtics came back and won game 2 and 3 both by 89-90, Lakers should win the series? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? And neither does it make sense for SC Here you are comparing them one to one directly and that is why the discussion about that topic started. In this example it is Lakers 1 - 2 Celtics and 288 - 220. Genius 2 - 3 MKP is the equivalent to 1 - 2 not the equivalent to 288 - 220. do you understand now why i disagreed? Genius 2 - 3 MKP is equivalent to 288 -220, not in a direct term, I was just using it as a direct comparison to their first layer, I'm not saying the first layer is the exact same technical substance. Fact of the matter is, both has 3 layer system. You must score points in all 3 layers to advance. None of these points from the lower layer ever carries over to their next meeting. The fact that you can not find any other sports or tournament or competitive formats in the world that uses extended series aside from MLG, is a pretty big anecdotal prove in itself that it isn't the best measure of fairness. There is no such thing like anecdotal proof and in my opinion you can't compare points and games because they do not have the same characteristics. It would be like comparing apples and oranges just because both things are fruits. Anecdotal evidence can definitely be used as proves. It's actually what part of our common law system is based around. And I mean, true, it isn't like ABSOLUTE concrete proofs if that is what you technically meant. But it still shows that there must be a reason that no other competition in the world, over the entire life-span of our civilization, have thought about using this extended series system, if it's that fair and if it actually helps find the better players like you said. Law and science are two very different things, and I do believe that in this case science applies and not law :p. The reason might just be that there is no other sport like starcraft 2 or that traditions persist longer than they should . . . like they always have. I don't understand how this is more similar to science instead of Law, as we are making a arbitrary rule (not an absolute law of nature rule). But ok, even using science, a lot statistics is part of science, especially in economics and business (yes economics is a field of science), and that in itself is based around a lot of anecdotal evidence.
And I don't see how there is no other sports like SC2, when it in itself is mainly based around the idea of Chess (or other strategy games), but taking out the turn concept and made it play in real time, hence "real-time strategy" games. And traditions don't prevent sport organizers to implement rules that improves fairness and balance of tournaments. It never has and never will. The fact that extended series is never used in any other competition is simply because it isn't a fair rule.
|
On April 15 2012 12:03 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:57 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:54 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:49 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:44 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote:We're just going in circles now. How can you say A is better than B (or vice versa) in the GROUP if B has beaten someone else in the group while A hasn't?
For example, if A's record is 3-2 vs B 0-2 vs C
While B is 2-3 vs A 2-0 vs D
saying that A is better player than B in the group is just being subjective. Using head to head game score to define which of the two is better in a GROUP play is just making things very very confusing and adding a lot of subjectivity into the decision.
Using set score on the other hand, is perfectly simple and balanced for everyone. Everyone has to win 2 sets to advance, period. Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL. The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair. The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head? The proposition of the OP only regards the GSL group stage format which is the setting where I think an extended series rule would be the correct thing to do. Using a gsl like format for bigger groups would be inherently unfair in my opinion which is why I think that such a setting is irrelevant. The GSL group stage is the exact same idea as my extreme example tho. Instead of having 10 people, and each having to play 5, they have 4 people and each has to play 2. A has head to head lead vs B, but B has beaten others in the group while A hasn't. It my extreme example, B beaten 4 others, while A lost to 4 others. In the GSL example, B beaten 1 other, while A lost to 1 other. It's the same concept, I just expanded it to a more extreme case to try to let you see why you can't ignore the other games in the group and only look at their head to head and determine who should advance. Ok, i'll play along. . . If you are in a group of ten players and A and B are both at 4-4 while C through J are already assigned to ranks 1-4 and 7-10 you actually have to use a head to head comparison like you do in the gsl format because nothing will ever change the relation of A and B to ranks 1-4 and 7-10. The only thing that changes is the relation between A and B. Or the 2nd option, to play a tie-breaker set, which is what GSL chose to do. With your way of doing it, GSL wouldn't need them to play a 2nd time. They would simply go A vs B: 2-1 B vs C: 2-0 A vs D: 0-2 K at this point, set score for A and B are both 1-1, therefore, we look at their head to head score, which A is 2-1 against B, so A advances (along with D) That would be the first option i mentioned earlier in the thread and i also said why i do not think that this would be good. If you in this case just play a fresh bo3 you ignore that head to head score, which is like discarding that result. If you instead extend the series you do consider the players first match and you generate content and you can be sure that more likely than with just a fresh bo3 the better player advances Right, playing more games is always more accurate determination of better player, that is a given. But it doesn't make the previous less fair. *edit, but do you see how your first option doesn't make any sense? Because A vs D's game would be meaningless and A would automatically advances if B wins against C.
You've said it yourself before, you can NOT ignore the other players that they've played on their different paths of getting to this final point. But extended series by nature ignores that, and only looks at their head to head.
|
On April 15 2012 12:07 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 11:57 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:54 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:49 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:46 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:41 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:33 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:27 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:19 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:12 Bazinga wrote: From the first to the last second of a basketball game you win points From the first to the last second of a sc2 game you win advantages Both add up to a win
And you do play boX in the playoffs are you not?
and in tennis a set is below the match isn't it? What? In basketball, you win positional advantages to score these points, which in turns wins you the game. you win 4 games in a Bo7 set to advance to the next round of the playoff. 1) positional advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance In sc2 you win these positional/upgrade advantages to win you the games, which if you win 2/3 games, you win a set. you win 2 sets to advance to the next round. 1) advantages 2) games 3) sets 4) win 2 sets to advance see, same layer. Basketball 1) advantages 2) points 3) games 4) wins the set to advance Starcraft 2 1) advantages 2) NULL 3) games 4) wins the set to advance is what i can agree with because 1) and 2) are gained within a game that is why I packed them together. You can not compare points to games because a game is enveloping the whole amount of time that is played within it and a point/advantage is sth gained within that amount of time Huh? But we're not comparing them one to one directly, we're comparing the number of layers these 2 have in total. They both have a 3 layer scoring system, simple as that. Advantages is not a scoring system because you can not quantified that. Another very very simple way to look at this is to treat each games as "points" or "scores" like in every other sports.
In Basketball for example, the points you get in the game is solely for measuring who wins that game. The score never carries over to the next game. The only advantage of getting more score is to win the game, and by winning the games, you get a permanent advantage of being one step closer to winning the tournament.
This is the same in Hockey, in Football, in Tennis, in soccer, in every sport. You're trying to argue that in the NBA, if Lakers beats Celtics in game 1 by a score of 90-40, then Celtics came back and won game 2 and 3 both by 89-90, Lakers should win the series? That wouldn't make much sense now would it? And neither does it make sense for SC Here you are comparing them one to one directly and that is why the discussion about that topic started. In this example it is Lakers 1 - 2 Celtics and 288 - 220. Genius 2 - 3 MKP is the equivalent to 1 - 2 not the equivalent to 288 - 220. do you understand now why i disagreed? Genius 2 - 3 MKP is equivalent to 288 -220, not in a direct term, I was just using it as a direct comparison to their first layer, I'm not saying the first layer is the exact same technical substance. Fact of the matter is, both has 3 layer system. You must score points in all 3 layers to advance. None of these points from the lower layer ever carries over to their next meeting. The fact that you can not find any other sports or tournament or competitive formats in the world that uses extended series aside from MLG, is a pretty big anecdotal prove in itself that it isn't the best measure of fairness. There is no such thing like anecdotal proof and in my opinion you can't compare points and games because they do not have the same characteristics. It would be like comparing apples and oranges just because both things are fruits. Anecdotal evidence can definitely be used as proves. It's actually what part of our common law system is based around. And I mean, true, it isn't like ABSOLUTE concrete proofs if that is what you technically meant. But it still shows that there must be a reason that no other competition in the world, over the entire life-span of our civilization, have thought about using this extended series system, if it's that fair and if it actually helps find the better players like you said. Law and science are two very different things, and I do believe that in this case science applies and not law :p. The reason might just be that there is no other sport like starcraft 2 or that traditions persist longer than they should . . . like they always have. I don't understand how this is more similar to science instead of Law, as we are making a arbitrary rule (not an absolute law of nature rule). But ok, even using science, a lot statistics is part of science, especially in economics and business (yes economics is a field of science), and that in itself is based around a lot of anecdotal evidence. And I don't see how there is no other sports like SC2, when it in itself is mainly based around the idea of Chess (or other strategy games), but taking out the turn concept and made it play in real time, hence "real-time strategy" games. And traditions don't prevent sport organizers to implement rules that improves fairness and balance of tournaments. It never has and never will. The fact that extended series is never used in any other competition is simply because it isn't a fair rule. Science applies because we are trying to discuss which rule is the better one to use. And chess might be to starcraft what football is to handegg . And for a long time no komi was used in go even though it is fairer which falsifies your statement about sports and traditions :p. And the math in both topics I presented earlier shows that the extended series rule does indeed improve the fairness of a tournament.
|
On April 15 2012 12:11 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 12:03 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:57 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:54 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:49 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:44 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:18 Bazinga wrote: [quote]
Using head to head game score in group play does not mean being subjective because head to head score shows how both players relate to each other, the relation of players C and D are already set in stone they are not concerned any longer. The only thing to think about now is how player A and B relate No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL. The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair. The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head? The proposition of the OP only regards the GSL group stage format which is the setting where I think an extended series rule would be the correct thing to do. Using a gsl like format for bigger groups would be inherently unfair in my opinion which is why I think that such a setting is irrelevant. The GSL group stage is the exact same idea as my extreme example tho. Instead of having 10 people, and each having to play 5, they have 4 people and each has to play 2. A has head to head lead vs B, but B has beaten others in the group while A hasn't. It my extreme example, B beaten 4 others, while A lost to 4 others. In the GSL example, B beaten 1 other, while A lost to 1 other. It's the same concept, I just expanded it to a more extreme case to try to let you see why you can't ignore the other games in the group and only look at their head to head and determine who should advance. Ok, i'll play along. . . If you are in a group of ten players and A and B are both at 4-4 while C through J are already assigned to ranks 1-4 and 7-10 you actually have to use a head to head comparison like you do in the gsl format because nothing will ever change the relation of A and B to ranks 1-4 and 7-10. The only thing that changes is the relation between A and B. Or the 2nd option, to play a tie-breaker set, which is what GSL chose to do. With your way of doing it, GSL wouldn't need them to play a 2nd time. They would simply go A vs B: 2-1 B vs C: 2-0 A vs D: 0-2 K at this point, set score for A and B are both 1-1, therefore, we look at their head to head score, which A is 2-1 against B, so A advances (along with D) That would be the first option i mentioned earlier in the thread and i also said why i do not think that this would be good. If you in this case just play a fresh bo3 you ignore that head to head score, which is like discarding that result. If you instead extend the series you do consider the players first match and you generate content and you can be sure that more likely than with just a fresh bo3 the better player advances Right, playing more games is always more accurate determination of better player, that is a given. But it doesn't make the previous less fair. *edit, but do you see how your first option doesn't make any sense? Because A vs D's game would be meaningless and A would automatically advances if B wins against C. You've said it yourself before, you can NOT ignore the other players that they've played on their different paths of getting to this final point. But extended series by nature ignores that, and only looks at their head to head.
My first option does make sense, and A vs D's game makes sense because the relation of B vs D is affected by it because their relation has not been established yet. And i never ignored the other games in the group stage and the extended series rule doesn't either, the only thing it does is give a more precise statement of the relation between player A and B.
|
GSL format is way better than mlg and ipl. Extended series is just awful.
|
No, just because you beat someone once in a BO3 does not mean you are better than him. Every match should start on even footing.
|
On April 15 2012 12:16 Bazinga wrote: Science applies because we are trying to discuss which rule is the better one to use. Huh? You didn't really explain why. That's just like me saying "Law applies because we are trying to discuss which rule is better one to use."
On April 15 2012 12:16 Bazinga wrote:And chess might be to starcraft what football is to handegg . How the actual game is played doesn't really change the fairness of a simple tournament format. Tournament formats are universal things, it can pretty much be used for every sports or competition out there.
On April 15 2012 12:16 Bazinga wrote:And for a long time no komi was used in go even though it is fairer which falsifies your statement about sports and traditions :p. And the math in both topics I presented earlier shows that the extended series rule does indeed improve the fairness of a tournament. Komi is a very specific rule to a specific sport/game, and I can think of 10 example that a sport/game changed for the better for every one example that you can come up with that they didnt due to tradition.
But what we're talking about is the balance and fairness of a tournament format, very different from specific sport/games. and as I was saying, if no tournament format in the world for any competition, in the life-time of our human civilization, haven't used extended series, it makes you wonder why. I mean which is more likely, all tournament organizers never thought about this extended series for their brackets, or that it's a terrible rule? I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that can think logically about it.
|
On April 15 2012 12:19 Bazinga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 12:11 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 12:03 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:57 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:54 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:49 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:44 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:38 Fubi wrote:On April 15 2012 11:31 Bazinga wrote:On April 15 2012 11:21 Fubi wrote: [quote] No, you can't just look at how good these 2 players are "in relation to each other". There is no point of making it a group stage if that is the case, cuz then you would simply make it a single elimination like in the open seasons of GSL.
The point of making it a group stage is to find the best 2 players in the GROUP. If one advances over another, that means he did better as a player in the GROUP; their head to head is already taken into account. If you really want to find the best player in the group without fail you would need to play out the whole group at the point of part 2 of a vs b you already decided who rank 1 and 4 are only rank 2 and 3 aren't set in stone. And the players for these spots are always determind by a head to head encounter between 2 and 3 which means that the winner of this encounter should be the better player of both, which in result means the extended series rule should be used because it improves the chances of the better player. I agree round robin system is the best to prove which players in the group are better; BUT that doesn't mean the current GSL system is unfair, nor does it prove that extended series is fair. The question is, how is a head to head score a better measure of the best players in the GROUP, as opposed to comparing to their group score? By extension, if the group were to be 10 people (but still not round robin, say each players only play 5 of the others). If A has better head to head score than B, but A loses to 4 of his other opponents while B beat all 4 of the others, how can you still say A is better than B or vice versa using head to head? The proposition of the OP only regards the GSL group stage format which is the setting where I think an extended series rule would be the correct thing to do. Using a gsl like format for bigger groups would be inherently unfair in my opinion which is why I think that such a setting is irrelevant. The GSL group stage is the exact same idea as my extreme example tho. Instead of having 10 people, and each having to play 5, they have 4 people and each has to play 2. A has head to head lead vs B, but B has beaten others in the group while A hasn't. It my extreme example, B beaten 4 others, while A lost to 4 others. In the GSL example, B beaten 1 other, while A lost to 1 other. It's the same concept, I just expanded it to a more extreme case to try to let you see why you can't ignore the other games in the group and only look at their head to head and determine who should advance. Ok, i'll play along. . . If you are in a group of ten players and A and B are both at 4-4 while C through J are already assigned to ranks 1-4 and 7-10 you actually have to use a head to head comparison like you do in the gsl format because nothing will ever change the relation of A and B to ranks 1-4 and 7-10. The only thing that changes is the relation between A and B. Or the 2nd option, to play a tie-breaker set, which is what GSL chose to do. With your way of doing it, GSL wouldn't need them to play a 2nd time. They would simply go A vs B: 2-1 B vs C: 2-0 A vs D: 0-2 K at this point, set score for A and B are both 1-1, therefore, we look at their head to head score, which A is 2-1 against B, so A advances (along with D) That would be the first option i mentioned earlier in the thread and i also said why i do not think that this would be good. If you in this case just play a fresh bo3 you ignore that head to head score, which is like discarding that result. If you instead extend the series you do consider the players first match and you generate content and you can be sure that more likely than with just a fresh bo3 the better player advances Right, playing more games is always more accurate determination of better player, that is a given. But it doesn't make the previous less fair. *edit, but do you see how your first option doesn't make any sense? Because A vs D's game would be meaningless and A would automatically advances if B wins against C. You've said it yourself before, you can NOT ignore the other players that they've played on their different paths of getting to this final point. But extended series by nature ignores that, and only looks at their head to head. My first option does make sense, and A vs D's game makes sense because the relation of B vs D is affected by it because their relation has not been established yet. And i never ignored the other games in the group stage and the extended series rule doesn't either, the only thing it does is give a more precise statement of the relation between player A and B. I assume you mean B vs C instead of B vs D as a typo.
But it still doesn't make sense. Sure, by your argument, A vs D makes sense cuz B vs C hasn't played yet. BUT, that means B vs C wouldn't make sense because they are played after A vs D. Imagine we're using your first option, and A loses to D. B vs C would be meaningless to B, because even if he wins, he won't advance, as his head to head vs A is meaningless. Therefore, in the whole tournament, he lost to one player once, and A beat only one of the four players, but A gets to advance over B? How is that a group stage?
But we're measuring the relation of A and B and C and D, not just A and B.
|
Have you watched MLG? Or SOTG? everyone in the world disagree's that is from any meaningful back round, giving any advantage is ridiculous when it is that heavy...
IF AT ALL, it should be map advantage, not anything game related, both players earned the rights to be there and earned the rights to fair contest even if it is repeated...
When MLG happens, and you see plays start a bo5 0-2 its no wonder the series are so shtity...
|
The links i provided earlier show precisely why an extended series format leads to a more acurrate representation of player skill. The reason why people disagree with using the rule is because it can drain excitement from games, because it seems like a player won right from the start and the awesome possible comebacks are not balancing this out enough.
And Fubi regarding the example, if: A > B C > D A < C --> C 2-0 A 1-1 B 0-1 D 0-1
Now there are a few possibilities a) D > B --> C 2-0 A 1-1 D 1-1 B 0-2
A vs D is played out normally because the relation of A and D hasn't been established yet
b) B > D C 2-0 A 1-1 B 1-1 D 0-2 Would mean that right now in a head-to-head comparison A > B which is fine A vs B is only needed to confirm that A > B not to establish that relationship Now we have another two possibilites: 1) Fresh bo3: A fresh bo3 results in either confirming A > B or it lets B advance without clearly determining which player performed better because a bo3 format is still really bad in determing who the better player was that day 2) Extended series: continuing with a bo7 results in a result which states clearly which player performed better and should advance
There are no meaningless games and even though you try so adamantly to say that tournament organisers not using that rule is proof that the rule is not fair you are wrong, simply because the rules quality is not determined by how frequently it is applied.
Therefore, in the whole tournament, he lost to one player once, and A beat only one of the four players, but A gets to advance over B? How is that a group stage? Advancing by only beating one player is a flaw of the way the players are paired. The extended series does not have any connection with that, which makes that kind of question meaningless.
Anyways I feel like discussing this topic with you guys isn't going to make sense any longer and with that I am going to withdraw from this topic. We might have to agree to disagree here.
|
Groups are dumb. They should just play them round robin so its more fair and theres no question who are the better players in the group. In the event of a tiebreaker they can just do head to head.
|
|
|
|