LAN Group Stage...confusion

[rafamundez]

Can someone explain to me why Mitoe played Diarouga twice and not PrinceofKabul at all in his group? I'm just a bit confused... because in other esports (and more generally sports such as the World Cup), the way group stages work is that you always do a round-robin where each player/team plays each other once. So it makes no sense to me why Mitoe didn't play PrinceofKabul at all. If it is not formatted as a round-robin, then that seems like a pretty unfair to do a group stage format. There is a reason every other sporting even that has a group stage subsequently has a round-robin format and that is to ensure that no points/stats are inflated, gives more meaning to a each match since you cannot play twice, and ensures everyone has had an equal shot at one another. I'm not saying that Mitoe would have beaten PrinceofKabul to make it past group stage but when you have a group stage format, it's categorically unfair for them to not face off when others in the same group have (incidentally, in this case, both Diarouga and Kaiserklein won handily vs Prince).

So if someone could explain this... I'd appreciate it. Not sure where this should be posted either.

[[Armag] diarouga]

This is the gsl format, it's how it works in StarCraft II.
The issue with your system is that there's no winner sometimes.

[rafamundez]

This is the gsl format, it's how it works in StarCraft II.
The issue with your system is that there's no winner sometimes.

There is always a winner. Look at any world cup (largest sporting event in the world) or at any League of Legends championship (largest esport event in the world)... if there are any ties, then there are very simple tiebreakers (in LoL, the 2 teams simply face off again whereas in the World Cup they count points). It makes no sense to adopt a more archaic format over a modern one.

Regardless, the major problem with this gsl format, significantly greater than having a simple tiebreaker, is that the road to getting out of group stage is not the same for every player/team thus leading to inherent unfairness no matter what happens.

[Mr_Bramboy]

You claim it's unfair to do anything other than a round-robin format. I disagree. Many other games and sports use other formats than the round robin. I can't recall the exact reason why we decided to go with GSL style groups, but it definitely had something to do with the huge amount of tiebreakers in previous open tournaments. Tiebreakers also take up unnecessarily much time while the current format allows for a smoother schedule.

Regardless, the major problem with this gsl format, significantly greater than having a simple tiebreaker, is that the road to getting out of group stage is not the same for every player/team thus leading to inherent unfairness no matter what happens.

Players seeded each other prior to the tournament. This means that, in theory, all matchups are equally fair. The road to getting out of the groups should be relatively even. Compare players and you'll see that no player had an 'easy' route compared to others.

[nimanoe]

Round Robins are hugely flawed. You can get match-ups where for one player there is nothing on the line playing against someone who has to win, which leads to potential match-throwing (sometimes not even on purpose, the other player is just demotivated). On top of that there is a big chance for draws, which not only is very anti-climactic for the viewers, tie-breaker matches are hard to set up, especially in three-way ties and will prolong the format. Other tie-breakers can be quite unfair, as it's just depending on what stats you prefer.

Regardless, the major problem with this gsl format, significantly greater than having a simple tiebreaker, is that the road to getting out of group stage is not the same for every player/team thus leading to inherent unfairness no matter what happens.

1. This is similar for Round Robin, where the groups are decided in advance, so you can get a group of death
2. Proper seeding should prevent most unfair match-ups
3. You have the exact same problem in Single and Double Eliminations, but you're not complaining about those

[gibson]

This is the gsl format, it's how it works in StarCraft II.
The issue with your system is that there's no winner sometimes.

csgo uses it too for many big tournaments

[_H2O]

This format is basically double elimination in each group. Double elimination is very fair because it ensures that people aren’t eliminated due to seeding and it’s structure gives the 2nd place slot to the right player.

Once you win two series your through. Mitoe couldn’t get to two wins against the top two players and neither could prince.

[pecelot]

I'm not an expert, but the currently-used format looks reasonable. You have to win twice to go through, and you have to lose twice to go out.

[Interjection]

@nimanoe said it all. Trust me this format is strictly better for many reasons and we're not a bunch of baboons that forget details like that Rapha

[Interjection]

@rafamundez

[Vinyanyérë]

Round-robin group stages gave us this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua1QggRcplY

As much as I want this as a drama connoisseur, I'm not sure I'd want this as a tournament admin.

[robo]

What's the context for that match?

[Mitoe]

What's the context for that match?

If I had to guess: near the end of the round-robin, outcome of the match changes nothing. Playing the game essentially only for pride or for fun, and he just wanted to get it over with as fast as possible.

[Riotcoke]

Why are they selling coats in that video?

[Mr_Bramboy]

Naniwa was banned for life for that game due to disrespect towards his opponent and the tournament admins. Round robin does indeed have many flaws.

[zoom]

The system as such is fine. The problem is poor seeding quality.

[t3rror1sta]

@rafamundez

This excel is much better to understand than the other in main page.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Naniwa was banned for life for that game due to disrespect towards his opponent and the tournament admins. Round robin does indeed have many flaws.

Really? Banned for life for throwing a game, that's some solid nazi stuff.

[Cometk]

The system as such is fine. The problem is poor seeding quality.

really?

[zoom]

Really! The players proved themselves incapable of rating each other, to such a degree, that Tabben was seeded last. Thankfully, the format itself helps offset this, to some, considerable, extent.

[Interjection]

To be fair, Tabben lost to Risi and went 3-2 vs Cossack

In the lead up to the event, he's improved an insane amount it looks like

[Cometk]

Really! The players proved themselves incapable of rating each other, to such a degree, that Tabben was seeded last. Thankfully, the format itself helps offset this, to some, considerable, extent.

what would your seeding have been?

[[Armag] diarouga]

Really! The players proved themselves incapable of rating each other, to such a degree, that Tabben was seeded last. Thankfully, the format itself helps offset this, to some, considerable, extent.

This seeding system is of course questionable but to be fair tabben deserved that #8 seed although he proved that he was one of the best at the LAN.
He lost 3-2 to risi, who's a good player for sure, but quite far from top 8, then he barely managed to beat Lukas (another underrated player because he's rather new to supremacy), and didn't qualify (losing 4-3 to kynesie is totally fine though).
In the end, tabben performed really poorly in the qualifiers, which is why he was underrated.

In addition, some players (like me and raphael), almost had a 100% winrate against tabben in rated games a few months ago so we just didn't see him coming.

[zoom]

Really! The players proved themselves incapable of rating each other, to such a degree, that Tabben was seeded last. Thankfully, the format itself helps offset this, to some, considerable, extent.

what would your seeding have been?

Interesting question. Here is how I rated the players, before LAN start: 1-3 (in no particular order): Kaiserklein, Lordraphael (notoriously keen on playing possum) and Tabben. 4-5 Mithroe and our eventual, well deserved champion (in no particular order). 6-7: Hazza and Snowwwwww (in no particular order). 8: Princeofkabul.

Here is how I would have seeded the players, in brief: By results in the past year or so, or by a hybrid of that and player opinion.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Really! The players proved themselves incapable of rating each other, to such a degree, that Tabben was seeded last. Thankfully, the format itself helps offset this, to some, considerable, extent.

what would your seeding have been?

Interesting question. Here is how I rated the players, before LAN start: 1-3 (in no particular order): Kaiserklein, Lordraphael (notoriously keen on playing possum) and Tabben. 4-5 Mithroe and our eventual, well deserved champion (in no particular order). 6-7: Hazza and Snowwwwww (in no particular order). 8: Princeofkabul.

Here is how I would have seeded the players, in brief: By results in the past year or so, or by a hybrid of that and player opinion.

Honestly, even an unfair system is better than such a biased system. This is totally arbitrary, and it has 0 legitimacy. Legitimacy is important, especially when a tournament is hosted by professionals. No offense, but you should try to understand that we can't make big decisions based on one's personal opinion (and that's also true for the EP changes).

It's of course easy to rate the players after a tournament, but why would snowww be #6-7 while he won the previous tournament? Also why would you put tabben #1-3? He did prove that he was indeed top3 but there was no way to see that coming.