Fairness of matchups

[[Armag] diarouga]

Waiting iro and otto to be allowed? :p

[deleted_user0]

yes. im too lazy to try a bit harder to bash people, i prefer to take it easy.

[Mimsy for President]

you wont get top if you dont play better players

You can''t improve in tourney. In fact, it''s an oppportunity to assess your own level. Also, every tourney provides recorded games and new bo''s. What can you learn from a game between a sergeant and a lt. colonel ?

[[Armag] diarouga]

you wont get top if you dont play better players

You cant improve in tourney. In fact, its an oppportunity to assess your own level. Also, every tourney provides recorded games and new bos. What can you learn from a game between a sergeant and a lt. colonel ?

Musket lost 2-0 to kalapuikko and I lost 4-0 to naga.
Who could expect that?

[Mimsy for President]

dafuq are you talking about lol ? What does it have to do with what I said ?

I expected this 4-0 -_-

[deleted_user0]

You cant improve in tourney. In fact, its an oppportunity to assess your own level. Also, every tourney provides recorded games and new bos. What can you learn from a game between a sergeant and a lt. colonel ?

Musket lost 2-0 to kalapuikko and I lost 4-0 to naga.
Who could expect that?

rofl i expected that too :/

nonetheless you can improve from tournament games, like from any game. and the fact you cant choose your opponents can be a barrier breaker.

in any case i dont get your point, sure others cant learn much from a game between a serg and a lt col, but the serg certainly can. its alot different to watch a vod or replay, than to actually play the game. only then you can feel what it is like to be playing under pressure, how to make decisions that are best in that split second that it matters. what to do when you are being raided, how to react to a thousand little things that matter in a high level game. and surely as a serg you probably never experienced this. and if you want to improve, you have to be exposed to this sooner rather than later.

if not, then as said before, either host your own for fun low lever tournament, or just play ladder, since if you dont play to win, there is no difference between a random game in eso and a tournament game. that said, for the inbetweeners, they are looking for a better solution... so again... pointless this thread

[[Armag] diarouga]

@djigit and Umeu meh '(

[Mimsy for President]

Musket lost 2-0 to kalapuikko and I lost 4-0 to naga.
Who could expect that?

rofl i expected that too :/

nonetheless you can improve from tournament games, like from any game. and the fact you cant choose your opponents can be a barrier breaker.

in any case i dont get your point, sure others cant learn much from a game between a serg and a lt col, but the serg certainly can. its alot different to watch a vod or replay, than to actually play the game. only then you can feel what it is like to be playing under pressure, how to make decisions that are best in that split second that it matters. what to do when you are being raided, how to react to a thousand little things that matter in a high level game. and surely as a serg you probably never experienced this. and if you want to improve, you have to be exposed to this sooner rather than later.

if not, then as said before, either host your own for fun low lever tournament, or just play ladder, since if you dont play to win, there is no difference between a random game in eso and a tournament game. that said, for the inbetweeners, they are looking for a better solution... so again... pointless this thread

"others cant learn much from a game between a serg and a lt col, but the serg certainly can"
Its funny because I doubt divine_moon learned something from his games.

"either host your own for fun low lever tournament, or just play ladder, since if you dont play to win, there is no difference between a random game in eso and a tournament game"
Do you really think people play to lose whether it be a "random eso game" or a tourney game ?

And no this thread is not pointless, lower and good players have to coexist. Try to put yourself in their shoes. Im sure you werent born pr30+ ')

[momuuu]

Jerom - happy to have a debate on this, but don''t have selective memory when replying to my posts. I''ve suggested ways, and reminded you THREE times, that you can come up with some other rules for a tournament to make it fun.

You just think you can go with a different fun tournement, but you don''t want to think about better formats for a serious tournement. That''s the problem, and that''s what''s pissing me off (maybe not as much as dia''s position on the subject though)

[deleted_user0]

[quote timestamp="1436106899" author="@shaolinstar" source="/post/22764/thread"][quote author="@umeu" source="/post/22675/thread" timestamp="1436082555"]rofl i expected that too :/

nonetheless you can improve from tournament games, like from any game. and the fact you cant choose your opponents can be a barrier breaker.

in any case i dont get your point, sure others cant learn much from a game between a serg and a lt col, but the serg certainly can. its alot different to watch a vod or replay, than to actually play the game. only then you can feel what it is like to be playing under pressure, how to make decisions that are best in that split second that it matters. what to do when you are being raided, how to react to a thousand little things that matter in a high level game. and surely as a serg you probably never experienced this. and if you want to improve, you have to be exposed to this sooner rather than later.

if not, then as said before, either host your own for fun low lever tournament, or just play ladder, since if you dont play to win, there is no difference between a random game in eso and a tournament game. that said, for the inbetweeners, they are looking for a better solution... so again... pointless this thread[/quote]"others cant learn much from a game between a serg and a lt col, but the serg certainly can"
It's funny because I doubt divine_moon learned something from his games.

"either host your own for fun low lever tournament, or just play ladder, since if you dont play to win, there is no difference between a random game in eso and a tournament game"
Do you really think people play to lose whether it be a "random eso game" or a tourney game ?

And no this thread is not pointless, lower and good players have to coexist. Try to put yourself in their shoes. I'm sure you weren't born pr30+ ')[/quote]

im not saying ppl play to lose, im just saying some people dont care if they win or lose, they just play for fun, to pass time, to not be bored, or for whatever reason.

if divine moon didnt learn anything from his game, its his own fault. im 100% convinced he could have picked up a few things if he wanted to. mostly its in a "negative" way, aka playing against higher ranked shows you what you are doing wrong, and it does so in a very direct manner. it shows you in which areas you are lacking and need to improve. it often shows you that builds and stuff you were doing before against worse players and thought to be good, dont actually work. it shows the areas in which you need to improve as well, aka having the same things at your disposal, yet having less res, or less units left alive after a fight. ofcourse you know these things most of the time, but im convinced nothing makes it so clear as experiencing it in a game. you can only get so far with theory.

this thread is pointless because before the thread was made, and pretty much in one of the first replies to the OP it has been said that they will look into a way to have good and bad players "coexist". were now on page13 and going in massive circle jerk.

i have put myself in their shoes (i was actually one of the few to advocate for a no pr limit on the tourney before the rules to this was announced, and i also said a better way to integrate this is a sc2 dreamhack style, something similar which will probably happen next tournament), and the reason why i am pr30+ is because i asked better players to play with me, show me things, and then when i obsed, watched recs, i tried to put it into practice against higher ranked players.

in my first tournament in 2010 i had to play vs flooky in the finals and got absolutely demolished, but i didnt complain about it, instead i saw that there was still a big skillgap between me and the top and i looked at what i had to improve, which was mainly micro. i started to practice my micro tons and when i played flooky again 1 year later I won 2-1. ofc this is unlikely to happen for a sergeant (yet its possible, i went from master sergeant to colonel in 6 months), maybe next time he will beat a luitenant because of it.
that you can learn, doesnt mean you will, its entirely up to yourself.

[jsimons1289]

Jerom - happy to have a debate on this, but dont have selective memory when replying to my posts. Ive suggested ways, and reminded you THREE times, that you can come up with some other rules for a tournament to make it fun.

You just think you can go with a different fun tournement, but you dont want to think about better formats for a serious tournement. Thats the problem, and thats whats pissing me off (maybe not as much as dias position on the subject though)

For a serious tournament the higher players are always more likely to win, no matter how its structured. Sure, you can have some qualifying rounds before the main tournament, but then when lower players enter the main draw, theyre more likely to lose vs their higher opponents. And again the argument can start of noob bashing 2-0 in the first round proper. For any serious tournament, this is always going to be the case - the better players win. So its not that I dont have ideas, sure you can long it out, have a league to start, have some qualifying which could be for lower players, but eventually you end up in the same place. Albeit after a few extra games - so theres more work for the admins, the tournament is longer, but you still reach the same place.

Unless you change the nature of tournament, youll end up in the same place. So its not that I dont want to think of ways of structuring it differently given the current nature, I just know eventually youll come full circle. No one has managed to answer my question yet - what is it the lower players want? If you cant beat the better players, what are you hoping for? More games for the fun of it vs. lower players? But Im told there are plenty of games on eso, tons infact. The organisers are thinking of ways to make it more fun for everyone, which is great, but given the nature of a competitive tournament, youll end up full circle.

As for divine_moon, who I played, he shouldve learnt something from the game. If he didnt, then its because he cant be bothered to learn, and therefore he doesnt deserve to improve. This game is about knowledge but also about reflection. Why did you lose? What could you do differently? Did he have a chance to push? Should he have defended? Could he copy my BO and do exactly the same thing as me next time? Look at the graphs after the game, about resources gathered, about shipments used, when did you have military advantage etc.?

I got this game because a friend had it, who helped me in team games. 1v1 I was on my own, and I had to learn from reflecting on games, from watching recs, from understanding BOs and increasing my knowledge. Im still not great at any of it, but when I played properly as was PR40 or so, I wanted to play better players. Losing was good, because it shows you a strat doesnt work, or you can improve. I remember playing NaturePhoenix and Ourk back in the day with hclugano, and we got slaughtered. But we recd the game and learned a new BO. A new strat. We knew what to scout for next time, or what to copy for next time. And I did copy it for some of our RTSL games - so a loss helped me get better. But it only helps if you want it to. If you think about it and analyse it. Anyone should be able to get to lt. level by watching recs, understand the BO for the first 8-10 minutes, and increasing their game knowledge. This tournament, playing in it, the recs that come from it, the vods, the discussion on streams, can help the whole community, given its nature as a competitive tournament.

[princeofkabul]

You cant improve in tourney. In fact, its an oppportunity to assess your own level. Also, every tourney provides recorded games and new bos. What can you learn from a game between a sergeant and a lt. colonel ?

Musket lost 2-0 to kalapuikko and I lost 4-0 to naga.
Who could expect that?

I expected that 4-0, what I didnt expect was musketjr lost to kalapuikko and veni - naga 5-0.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Musket lost 2-0 to kalapuikko and I lost 4-0 to naga.
Who could expect that?

I expected that 4-0, what I didnt expect was musketjr lost to kalapuikko and veni - naga 5-0.

xD
I was joking for the naga part and everybody answered seriously ?I was expected that?.
Meh

[Mimsy for President]

well...let's say I joked too then

15

[zoom]

If the lower players ain''t happy about seeding system in competive tournament they might aswell just leave.

Indeed they might ?? and since it''s in the community''s best interests to have them do the exact opposite (that would be stay), we are facilitating this discussion on how to better take into consideration their wishes generally and the enjoyment and fairness for all participants of the community (including the non-discrimination of better players) specifically.

You wouldn''t happen to have anything to add except the most obviously obvious, would you..?

[zoom]

I pity your ignorance of tournament seeding. Im still not sure you realize that what you are asking for (which isnt anything specific really, youre just being a bitch as far as I can tell) would be nothing but discrimination against good players.

Surely you can see how discriminating against anyone based on their skill is bad, but even worse for the entertainment value and interest of the tournament when its against high skill level players...

Do you really want to discriminate against good players for the benefit of bad ones??

You could also like, not discriminate at all. Just a purely random seeding.

It is apparent you dont understand the theory of the seeding system either' a purely random seeding is exactly what I am trying to point out constitutes blatant discrimination of the best players.

Everyone posting ITT ?? if they havent already ?? really needs to learn what seeding is and how it works before they voice their presumed opinions. That would help in getting anywhere...

[momuuu]

You could also like, not discriminate at all. Just a purely random seeding.

It is apparent you dont understand the theory of the seeding system either' a purely random seeding is exactly what I am trying to point out constitutes blatant discrimination of the best players.

Everyone posting ITT ?? if they havent already ?? really needs to learn what seeding is and how it works before they voice their presumed opinions. That would help in getting anywhere...

No, its apperant that you dont understand the theory behind discrimination.

Not that I oppose the idea of seeding, I just oppose the exact way it is right now.

[zoom]

It is apparent you dont understand the theory of the seeding system either' a purely random seeding is exactly what I am trying to point out constitutes blatant discrimination of the best players.

Everyone posting ITT ?? if they havent already ?? really needs to learn what seeding is and how it works before they voice their presumed opinions. That would help in getting anywhere...

No, its apperant that you dont understand the theory behind discrimination.

Not that I oppose the idea of seeding, I just oppose the exact way it is right now.

No. Again, you believing so only reaffirms my claim. If you knew the theory of a seeding-system such as this, you would know I am absolutely correct in my bolded statement above: random seeding with this system constitutes blatant discrimination of anyone who is above the average skill level of participants' the higher above the greater the discrimination.

[purplesquid]

I agree that the way this tourney was seed was perfectly fair and is exactly how seeding is suppose to work. I also see the point that the first round had a lot of noob bashing going on and that is no fun for anyone.

I like the idea that the best players get a bye for x number or rounds but I like the qualifying tournament idea better

Have anyone captain or higher automatically qualify and then a round robin style qualifying tourney (perhaps have like 2 months or longer for the group stages to be played so the games actually would get played). The qualifying tourney could be the "off season" event that goes on a couple months before the actual tournament. The groups could even be relatively large (say 8 people) so that there would always be at least a few close matchups for everyone.

This would allow the tournament to be paired down to say 128 people while still allowing everyone to play "tournament" games that they at least have a hope of winning.

[momuuu]

No, its apperant that you dont understand the theory behind discrimination.

Not that I oppose the idea of seeding, I just oppose the exact way it is right now.

No. Again, you believing so only reaffirms my claim. If you knew the theory of a seeding-system such as this, you would know I am absolutely correct in my bolded statement above: random seeding with this system constitutes blatant discrimination of anyone who is above the average skill level of participants' the higher above the greater the discrimination.

"Discrimination: an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction."

Not want to be nitpicking too much, but giving higher ranked players advantageous spots in the brackets is definitely making a distinction based on discrimination, so it is obviously discrimination. Not discriminating would mean that you treat everybody the same, aka as seeding people randomly.

Yes, seeding randomly will mean higher level players might have to face eachother, which would be bad luck for them. Thats obviously not discrimination however' They were treated the same as any other player. Discrimination would be giving certain people more better seeds in the tournement based on their ranking. In that case youd discriminate based on rankings.

[SoldieR]

I agree that the way this tourney was seed was perfectly fair and is exactly how seeding is suppose to work. I also see the point that the first round had a lot of noob bashing going on and that is no fun for anyone.

I like the idea that the best players get a bye for x number or rounds but I like the qualifying tournament idea better

Have anyone captain or higher automatically qualify and then a round robin style qualifying tourney (perhaps have like 2 months or longer for the group stages to be played so the games actually would get played). The qualifying tourney could be the "off season" event that goes on a couple months before the actual tournament. The groups could even be relatively large (say 8 people) so that there would always be at least a few close matchups for everyone.

This would allow the tournament to be paired down to say 128 people while still allowing everyone to play "tournament" games that they at least have a hope of winning.

This

[macacoalbino]

I agree that the way this tourney was seed was perfectly fair and is exactly how seeding is suppose to work. I also see the point that the first round had a lot of noob bashing going on and that is no fun for anyone.

I like the idea that the best players get a bye for x number or rounds but I like the qualifying tournament idea better

Have anyone captain or higher automatically qualify and then a round robin style qualifying tourney (perhaps have like 2 months or longer for the group stages to be played so the games actually would get played). The qualifying tourney could be the "off season" event that goes on a couple months before the actual tournament. The groups could even be relatively large (say 8 people) so that there would always be at least a few close matchups for everyone.

This would allow the tournament to be paired down to say 128 people while still allowing everyone to play "tournament" games that they at least have a hope of winning.

This

+1
The qualifying tourney could include some featured games as well, where casters could point out good and bad things players are doing ^^

[deleted_user0]

No. Again, you believing so only reaffirms my claim. If you knew the theory of a seeding-system such as this, you would know I am absolutely correct in my bolded statement above: random seeding with this system constitutes blatant discrimination of anyone who is above the average skill level of participants' the higher above the greater the discrimination.

"Discrimination:?an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction."

Not want to be nitpicking too much, but giving higher ranked players advantageous spots in the brackets is definitely making a distinction based on discrimination, so it is obviously discrimination. Not discriminating would mean that you treat everybody the same, aka as seeding people randomly.

Yes, seeding randomly will mean higher level players might have to face eachother, which would be bad luck for them. Thats obviously not discrimination however' They were treated the same as any other player. Discrimination would be giving certain people more better seeds in the tournement based on their ranking. In that case youd discriminate based on rankings.?

Jerom is right. The seeds are "positive" discrimination of the top players, or depending on the pov "negative" discrimination of the lower players. However, discrimination isnt just making a distinction, we make distinctions all the time, its the only way we can navigate in this world. Making a distinction based on merit has been socially accepted as being non-discriminatory. The tournament seedings is a bit of a grey area, but while giving seeds may not be discriminating per se, having total randomness is not discriminating per definition. Its simply not giving the top players the advantages they get with seeding, but this doesnt mean they are being disadvantaged.

[SoldieR]

Lul