On January 11 2017 22:48 Elentos wrote: But when Billowy goes 3-2 vs sOs and sOs gets to advance because that's how the groups work, some people will ask themselves the question "So are we sure the better player advanced here?", and that question isn't unwarranted.
The question is unwarranted for a different reason. Tournaments have never been about finding out who the better player is, tournaments are about who is winning the games.
If tournaments are solely about who is winning, why is there a 2nd chance for the players who didn't (double elimination)? Why give the discussion about your tournament system any basis? If you only care who wins you should use round robin.
Cause this system allows you to play more games, which makes for better storylines and better broadcasts than just playing one game and being done with it.
The round robin doesn't have to be best of 1. If you have 4 people and make everyone play 2 games against everyone else you have 12 games for a 4 player group, a regular GSL group is between 10 and 15 games. So you could make it clear who wins and loses and fill your broadcast time.
And don't even get me started on the whole storyline thing.
Point is, they could use something different if they wanted to but they don't. So every time something like today occurs they'll get the same questions from 6 years ago.
Sry for some reason when you said round robin I read single elimination.
Round robin and double elim are equivalent for players if you look at it objectively, so whichever you prefer is your personal taste.
Tbf gsl format is much more predictable in terms of production. What SSL tried to do was cool and all but could have been a very short day or a long one.
I think SSL kinda scheduled it so it wouldn't take less than 8 hours and I think the casters were all ready for the days to take 12 hours.
On January 11 2017 23:21 i-MajiN wrote: Billowy played very well yesterday against such protoss as herO and Classic. He showed us a great defense. I thought he could qualify but sadly he failed Feel sorry to him cause i think he practiced hard for this tournament.
Anyway congratz to sOs & soO 2 of my favourite players.
Small online tournaments and big offline tournaments are two different worlds. Offline experience is not something that a rookie player can gain quickly and this leads to the result today. However, if sOs keep playing PvP like this, he will drop out Ro.16, soO's ZvP is not very solid today either.
Protoss players keep telling me that there won't be many of them left after the Ro32 so maybe sOs won't have to worry.
I was about to say this...But yeah, maybe he should worry about his PvT rather than PvP. Hopefully there will be another Protoss survivor between Classic and Stats.
I'm pretty scared for Stats atm. Stuck in a group with 2 Terrans (one of which is ByuN) with a ladder PvT win rate less than 50% and a huge mental block in the match-up.
On January 12 2017 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
It's equivalent to double elim in that it's something that really really doesn't matter and yet is presented as a huge hindrance, much like losing to someone you beat before gets the same treatment in double elim.
On January 12 2017 00:32 MyTHicaL wrote: Some nice games. Outcome of Billowy vs soO was obvious, 1 game won due to build orders and the others showcased soO's simple superiority.
soO was 1 properly placed forcefield away from losing 0-2 to Billowy
Not at all.. He had full saturation 5 bases. He would've eventually cleaned up or pushed billowy back; and then simply would've won at a later stage. I also don't know if it was just one forcefield.. The line of them was bad but there wasn't only one hole!
On January 12 2017 00:32 MyTHicaL wrote: Some nice games. Outcome of Billowy vs soO was obvious, 1 game won due to build orders and the others showcased soO's simple superiority.
soO was 1 properly placed forcefield away from losing 0-2 to Billowy
Not at all.. He had full saturation 5 bases. He would've eventually cleaned up or pushed billowy back; and then simply would've won at a later stage. I also don't know if it was just one forcefield.. The line of them was bad but there wasn't only one hole!
It was one. He misplaced the forcefield on the ramp which allowed banelings to destroy the core of his army from behind. If Billowy correctly places that forcefield, he takes out most of soO's army, which soO (with no bank to speak off) can't replenish fast enough to save himself from losing most of his infrastructure and some of the units he would be remaking.
On January 12 2017 00:46 Nebuchad wrote: You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
Is that even mathematically possible for most round robin groups? I think you could end up in a tie being forced to play a tie breaker but I'm not sure how the group would have to look so you're just flat out eliminated despite having won most of your matches.
On January 12 2017 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
It's equivalent to double elim in that it's something that really really doesn't matter and yet is presented as a huge hindrance, much like losing to someone you beat before gets the same treatment in double elim.
What format are we talking about right now? Bo3 round robin?
I mean you already implied it never matters because you won't find the best player or something. I am not quite sure on what lvl we are arguing here though. Would we find the best player if we had a big round robin including all players? Or do you imply that competition in itself isn't able to find "the best" ?
On January 12 2017 00:46 Nebuchad wrote: You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
Is that even mathematically possible for most round robin groups? I think you could end up in a tie being forced to play a tie breaker but I'm not sure how the group would have to look so you're just flat out eliminated despite having won most of your matches.
I guess he means map wins? But even there you need like bo5 or something
On January 12 2017 01:00 NinjaToss wrote: any recommended games today?
second series between sOs and Billowy was fun. sOs second game vs Curious wasn't anything special, but was kinda wonky considering the opening and how far Curious was. Maybe Billowy vs soO, can't remember much other than that one missed forcefield.
On January 12 2017 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
It's equivalent to double elim in that it's something that really really doesn't matter and yet is presented as a huge hindrance, much like losing to someone you beat before gets the same treatment in double elim.
What format are we talking about right now? Bo3 round robin?
I mean you already implied it never matters because you won't find the best player or something. I am not quite sure on what lvl we are arguing here though. Would we find the best player if we had a big round robin including all players? Or do you imply that competition in itself isn't able to find "the best" ?
"The best player" is basically people who are salty that their guy didn't win and are trying to diminish the accomplishment of people who beat him. It's an idea with no merit.
We are having this conversation because I misread Elentos' post as saying that we might as well have single elim then, which I disagree with cause single elim is a much weaker format. Round robin and double elim have the same strengths and weaknesses.
And no I didn't mean map wins, I meant 2-1 2-1 2-1 0-3, thought that was obvious
On January 12 2017 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
It's equivalent to double elim in that it's something that really really doesn't matter and yet is presented as a huge hindrance, much like losing to someone you beat before gets the same treatment in double elim.
What format are we talking about right now? Bo3 round robin?
I mean you already implied it never matters because you won't find the best player or something. I am not quite sure on what lvl we are arguing here though. Would we find the best player if we had a big round robin including all players? Or do you imply that competition in itself isn't able to find "the best" ?
"The best player" is basically people who are salty that their guy didn't win and are trying to diminish the accomplishments of people who beat him. It's an idea with no merit.
We are having this conversation because I misread Elentos' post as saying that we might as well have single elim then, which I disagree with cause single elim is a much weaker format. Round robin and double elim have the same strengths and weaknesses.
And no I didn't mean map wins, I meant 2-1 2-1 2-1 0-3, thought that was obvious
2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 0-3 forces tie breaker matches though, in that situation you won't simply get eliminated despite winning more than half your matches. I can see ties and potential tie breakers being problematic for organizers, but I thought you were saying it's possible to flatout be eliminated despite winning the majority of your matches. So I guess it was a misunderstanding.
On January 12 2017 01:46 Ej_ wrote: who cares about what is fair and what is not, what matters is that our liquibets were saved
I'm surprised after 2 groups (with decently obvious outcomes) we have people with 2 or less points. Is that just a case of "This will make me look really smart when it happens or really stupid when it doesn't?"-predictions to get a possible lead?
On January 12 2017 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
It's equivalent to double elim in that it's something that really really doesn't matter and yet is presented as a huge hindrance, much like losing to someone you beat before gets the same treatment in double elim.
What format are we talking about right now? Bo3 round robin?
I mean you already implied it never matters because you won't find the best player or something. I am not quite sure on what lvl we are arguing here though. Would we find the best player if we had a big round robin including all players? Or do you imply that competition in itself isn't able to find "the best" ?
"The best player" is basically people who are salty that their guy didn't win and are trying to diminish the accomplishments of people who beat him. It's an idea with no merit.
We are having this conversation because I misread Elentos' post as saying that we might as well have single elim then, which I disagree with cause single elim is a much weaker format. Round robin and double elim have the same strengths and weaknesses.
And no I didn't mean map wins, I meant 2-1 2-1 2-1 0-3, thought that was obvious
2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 0-3 forces tie breaker matches though, in that situation you won't simply get eliminated despite winning more than half your matches. I can see ties and potential tie breakers being problematic for organizers, but I thought you were saying it's possible to flatout be eliminated despite winning the majority of your matches. So I guess it was a misunderstanding.
You said it would lead to the same amount of matches as this format so I assumed Bo3
On January 12 2017 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
It's equivalent to double elim in that it's something that really really doesn't matter and yet is presented as a huge hindrance, much like losing to someone you beat before gets the same treatment in double elim.
What format are we talking about right now? Bo3 round robin?
I mean you already implied it never matters because you won't find the best player or something. I am not quite sure on what lvl we are arguing here though. Would we find the best player if we had a big round robin including all players? Or do you imply that competition in itself isn't able to find "the best" ?
"The best player" is basically people who are salty that their guy didn't win and are trying to diminish the accomplishment of people who beat him. It's an idea with no merit.
We are having this conversation because I misread Elentos' post as saying that we might as well have single elim then, which I disagree with cause single elim is a much weaker format. Round robin and double elim have the same strengths and weaknesses.
And no I didn't mean map wins, I meant 2-1 2-1 2-1 0-3, thought that was obvious
"The best player" is the player who would win most games if he played against every other player in the competition i guess.
As Elentos already said, if we are simply talking matches your comment seems to be wrong
On January 12 2017 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well by definition "winning games" means you are the better player. Ofc it is important who your opponents are and with that in mind bracket luck comes into play. I don't see how round robin and double elim are equivalent tbh, the only problem with round robin is the situation when somebody cannot advance anymore and therefore might not play his best in the deciding match for another player. Which tbf is a big problem.
You can advance while losing the majority of your matches and you can be eliminated while winning the majority of your matches, depending on how your opponents in the group are doing.
It's equivalent to double elim in that it's something that really really doesn't matter and yet is presented as a huge hindrance, much like losing to someone you beat before gets the same treatment in double elim.
What format are we talking about right now? Bo3 round robin?
I mean you already implied it never matters because you won't find the best player or something. I am not quite sure on what lvl we are arguing here though. Would we find the best player if we had a big round robin including all players? Or do you imply that competition in itself isn't able to find "the best" ?
"The best player" is basically people who are salty that their guy didn't win and are trying to diminish the accomplishment of people who beat him. It's an idea with no merit.
We are having this conversation because I misread Elentos' post as saying that we might as well have single elim then, which I disagree with cause single elim is a much weaker format. Round robin and double elim have the same strengths and weaknesses.
And no I didn't mean map wins, I meant 2-1 2-1 2-1 0-3, thought that was obvious
"The best player" is the player who would win most games if he played against every other player in the competition i guess.
As Elentos already said, if we are simply talking matches your comment seems to be wrong
Over a long period or a short one? Cuz sOs won't be high on the list if it's over a short period of time
It seemed like Billowy just didn't want to put some defence in his mineral line. One dt keep coming in and screwing his mining. seemed like tastless wanted to scream build a cannon so many bases getting rekt to the same thing with Billowy not doing much to stop the harass
@ everyone who is blaming sOs advancement on tournament structure:
billowy literally lost two games because he didnt use photon cannons vs DT's
he knows better he just tried to get an edge by not building them, saving the minerals thinking "ok, hes gonna stop making these"
if he wins that game because he starts an extra nexus with those minerals or gets an extra prism, then he looks smart. he worked so hard to get to that point, and then he just risk it all like that, assuming sOs is done with DT's?
i dont want that guy in ro16. well i mean, i do. but id rather have the guy who keeps making DT's because you are not making cannons