let's say: due to an "inconvenient incident" from my personal side, I was unable to release the brackets by now. I will hand them in as soon as I have the option to.-Kamikaze- wrote:
Okay, so we didn't get it, welp
forum
osu!mania 4K World Cup - Discussion Thread
posted
Total Posts
189
Topic Starter
Understood. I actually thought about doing brackets by myself but ehh forgot to
I gotta say, even tho mappools were kinda meh this round, the mappool showcased today is so good, that I'm genuinely happy that Starry and Spy are mappool selectors. Great fucking job.
Topic Starter
http://puu.sh/jUivf/0f3857b35f.jpg aaaaa I am going to slap the designer. This is way too spacious. But have it for now. Better than nothing. But it doesnt fit on the Wiki, so yeah... *flies and does the schedule*
Great mappool, very good job Starry.
Is it weird that I will play my own map in mwc? xD
Is it weird that I will play my own map in mwc? xD
Topic Starter
We updated the wiki with past match results, a link to the gigantic knock out bracket, the schedule, the mappool and a mappack for it.
Round of 8 mappools are generally the best, this doesn't disappoint. Pretty fond of this.
jumpstreams
This informative post will be deleted anyway, just move along
EtienneXC? More like EtienneOP!
AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYTasha wrote:
EtienneXC? More like EtienneOP!
WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN
TASHA WITH THE MAD FIRE, SPEAKING THESE FLAMES OF WISDOM
Nice tie breaker for semi finals mappool.
Topic Starter
Updated the wiki with everything!
Rori Vidi Veni wrote:
ETienne
i think EtienneXC & Halogen- for 4K omwc
SUCH INTENSITY
MUCH HYPE
THAT COMEBACK
10/10 WOULD WATCH MATCH AGAIN
TIEBREAKER HYYYYYYYYYPE
MUCH HYPE
THAT COMEBACK
10/10 WOULD WATCH MATCH AGAIN
TIEBREAKER HYYYYYYYYYPE
Next matches 6:0 and 7:0 for USA there is no way that any1 will win atleast 1 round against them with that mappool (legit win, no disconnections)
Man, that Malaysia/Philippines matchup was incredible -- was really happy to be a part of the commentating team for that. Great job to both teams.
Topic Starter
Updated wiki. Will do the knockout bracket after sleeping. Doesnt seem like I'll get a redesign in time. Sorry for that :U
Malaysia vs PH was amazing, wanderlust !
Man, I hate to be this person because I normally how to keep my mouth shut and whatnot, but...
...I would rather drink bleach than play Spy's Blastix Riotz... jesus christ. This map is the epitome of what NOT to do in a high speed song. >______>
...I would rather drink bleach than play Spy's Blastix Riotz... jesus christ. This map is the epitome of what NOT to do in a high speed song. >______>
Made an error in the MWC 4K Picks section, NS18 has only been played three times but is listed as 4. Am fond of this though, but I would've preferred to see percentages instead.Nwolf wrote:
for the people that asked me to do this again
le map picking/banning statistics
Finals hype
On another note, it is pretty funny to see that my maps either had a really high banrate or is played a very good majority of the time.
damn I thought I fixed NS18 lol
I could make percentages, I'll see. Thanks for feedback :3
I could make percentages, I'll see. Thanks for feedback :3
Waiting for fast owc end to start mwc 7k hype :^)KevEz wrote:
Waiting for this to end to start #owc hype
Topic Starter
wiki updated. Time to await the grand finals!
we have a proper bracket now
we have a proper bracket now
M. Night Shyamalan plot twist brought to you by Japan and Speed of Link.
(What the hell was that pick, hahaha...)
(What the hell was that pick, hahaha...)
huge thanks to belgium for taking care of korea for us
you guys are amazing
you guys are amazing
Will the Grand Finals require Japan to win to USA 2 matches in a row in order to win the tournament? (That requirement is not always applied for Double Elimination tournaments, and the wiki is not very clear about that, the only possible allusion is this image http://puu.sh/bUq5V/f1066103b0.png).
Also, how will the 3rd place be determined? (The pairings done for the tournament aren't fair for determining a third place, any arbitrary criteria would have a bias; in general, double eliminations tournaments aren't appropriate for determining places beyond 2nd place).
By analyzing the results of the tournament (who won against which team), the tiers of the teams would be: (teams of the same tier can't be inferred to be worse or better than each other, since there is no enough information)
Tier 6: Japan
Tier 7: USA
If Japans wins once against USA in the Grand Finals (and there is no 2nd match)
Tier 6: Japan, USA
If Japan wins twice against USA:
Tier 6: USA
Tier 7: Japan
Also, how will the 3rd place be determined? (The pairings done for the tournament aren't fair for determining a third place, any arbitrary criteria would have a bias; in general, double eliminations tournaments aren't appropriate for determining places beyond 2nd place).
By analyzing the results of the tournament (who won against which team), the tiers of the teams would be: (teams of the same tier can't be inferred to be worse or better than each other, since there is no enough information)
- Tier 1: Taiwan, Poland, Netherlands, Australia
- Tier 2: Canada, Argentina, France, South Korea
- Tier 3: Indonesia
- Tier 4: China, Philippines, Brazil
- Tier 5: UK, Malaysia
Tier 6: Japan
Tier 7: USA
If Japans wins once against USA in the Grand Finals (and there is no 2nd match)
Tier 6: Japan, USA
If Japan wins twice against USA:
Tier 6: USA
Tier 7: Japan
Topic Starter
The third place is the loser of the loser brackets finals. Japan has to win twice against the USA to win the 1st place. Losing grand finals makes them second.
There is nothing delusional or unclear about that.
There is nothing delusional or unclear about that.
Full Tablet wrote:
Will the Grand Finals require Japan to win to USA 2 matches in a row in order to win the tournament? (That requirement is not always applied for Double Elimination tournaments, and the wiki is not very clear about that, the only possible allusion is this image http://puu.sh/bUq5V/f1066103b0.png).
){kind=link}
Yes it is; all double elimination tournaments have this stipulation. If it doesn't, it's a malformed tournament structure because it implies that an undefeated team is immediately eliminated upon a single loss in the grand finals - quite the unfair disadvantage for a team to not have the ability to lose once when others do.
For me, the confusion is not with the structure of the physical bracket, but rather the terminology of the bracket: I was always under the impression that a winner's bracket winner and loser's bracket winner matchup was noted as the finals, and only if the winner's bracket team loses did the upcoming match be called the grand finals (and rightfully so, as there is no other match due to the winner's bracket team terminating the winner's bracket and falling into a sudden-death matchup in the loser's bracket where the loser is eliminated and the winner has no one else to face).
The loser in the loser bracket finals doesn't indicate who is the third best team in the tournament.Loctav wrote:
The third place is the loser of the loser brackets finals.
A simple example where the double elimination tournament format fails in that regard, is a competition of who has the most amount of birthmarks on the face (a game that is completely deterministic, since the amount of birthmarks doesn't change between games, and there is no randomness involved).
If the brackets are set like this:
Then the 3rd place would go to the player that has 4 birthmarks on their face, even though there are 4 people who have more birthmarks. The result of who is 3rd place is dependent on how the brackets are set, which allows tournament organizers to have control over who gets the 3rd place award (as long as they can estimate the relative skills of the teams before the tournament).
... what?Full Tablet wrote:
Then the 3rd place would go to the player that has 4 birthmarks on their face, even though there are 4 people who have more birthmarks.The result of who is 3rd place is dependent on how the brackets are set, which allows tournament organizers to have control over who gets the 3rd place award (as long as they can estimate the relative skills of the teams before the tournament).
You sit here and bring up a methodology of organizing a mock bracket that is completely deterministic which is hardly applicable given that there are numerous variables in a given match. If you paid attention at all to the tournament, you would realize the following:
- a.) the group stage drawings were randomized
- b.) the winning two teams from each group were placed against teams from the opposing side of the bracket (group A v. group H, group B v. group G, group C v. group F, etc -- with the better seed team from one group playing the lower seed team from the other)
- c.) being "deterministic" makes absolutely no sense because it absolutely does not dictate how a team is going to perform: if you need a perfect example of this, take note of how Brazil nearly missed the cut of getting out of Group Stages and made it to the finals of the loser's bracket.
Tournaments assess skill, but they do so on the fly, and trying to set a virtually level playing field to prove a point is substantially less realistic than you might believe. If you're going to seriously make some sort of implication that something was even remotely rigged... you really should stop. >_>
EDIT: in fact, let's take this whole "deterministic" model of yours and tear it to shreds using South Korea and Brazil teams: if you were to seed these players based off of their overall performance on all of the maps (by %, which is admittedly not the most consistent metric but one that is realistic and fluctuates throughout the tournament), I'd be willing to bet that Brazil's performance was pretty weak (acceptable to assume given that they had to draw it all the way out to a tiebreaker). They also lost to South Korea in Group Stages, and rightfully so, because the SK team has much better accuracy in the lower rounds. Carry that seeding through the tournament and you'll see the likely lower seeded Brazil team wipe out the SK team with ease.
Again, you can't just create a linear example and assume that it's sound logic. Too many variables are present during live play.
I didn't claim that the game played in this tournament is deterministic (after all, under the assumption that a one-dimensional measure of skill exists, it's not safe to assume that a more skilled team will always win against a less skilled team).Halogen- wrote:
... what?
You sit here and bring up a methodology of organizing a mock bracket that is completely deterministic which is hardly applicable given that there are numerous variables in a given match. If you paid attention at all to the tournament, you would realize the following:
- a.) the group stage drawings were randomized
- b.) the winning two teams from each group were placed against teams from the opposing side of the bracket (group A v. group H, group B v. group G, group C v. group F, etc -- with the better seed team from one group playing the lower seed team from the other)
- c.) being "deterministic" makes absolutely no sense because it absolutely does not dictate how a team is going to perform: if you need a perfect example of this, take note of how Brazil nearly missed the cut of getting out of Group Stages and made it to the finals of the loser's bracket.
Tournaments assess skill, but they do so on the fly, and trying to set a virtually level playing field to prove a point is substantially less realistic than you might believe. If you're going to seriously make some sort of implication that something was even remotely rigged... you really should stop. >_>
EDIT: in fact, let's take this whole "deterministic" model of yours and tear it to shreds using South Korea and Brazil teams: if you were to seed these players based off of their overall performance on all of the maps (by %, which is admittedly not the most consistent metric but one that is realistic and fluctuates throughout the tournament), I'd be willing to bet that Brazil's performance was pretty weak (acceptable to assume given that they had to draw it all the way out to a tiebreaker). They also lost to South Korea in Group Stages, and rightfully so, because the SK team has much better accuracy in the lower rounds. Carry that seeding through the tournament and you'll see the likely lower seeded Brazil team wipe out the SK team with ease.
Again, you can't just create a linear example and assume that it's sound logic. Too many variables are present during live play.
The double elimination tournament format is not well-suited to estimate a third place in terms of skill, in a non-deterministic game, if it is not even well-suited to determine a third place in a deterministic game. Making a competition system in a non-deterministic game has stronger requirements, if the objective is estimating accurately which teams are the best. Fulfilling those requirements is not practical (for example, a system where every team plays against every other team a fixed amount of times, the higher the amount the better, and each team doesn't know whether they won each match or not, is much more likely to achieve accurate results than the tournament, even if is not feasible to do).
One of the simplest alternatives that is well-suited for estimating a third place in terms of skill is a triple elimination tournament.
The way the better seeded teams were paired with lower seeded teams in the first round does reduce the probabilities of a case similar to the example I gave previously (assuming a simple random selection for the teams in each group), compared to setting the brackets randomly at the start of the tournament. The problem with making the selections completely random, is that the system introduces an element of randomness that is not inherent to the game that is being played; the alternative of not doing the selections completely random at some point of the competition, is that the tournament organizers would then have the power to influence the results.
Topic Starter
tl;dr: all your examples are highly hypothetical and not applicable to anything we do here. Nothing is under our control. Double Elimination perfectly works to determine a podium in a simple "who drops out first, who drops out last" format. Your entire asset of "determining skill" fails to begin with, because a tournament is not only influenced by skill, but also by environment.
Do not forget that every stage has different pools of extremely different skill level that it requires to play. You are comparing apples with peaches.
Any of your suggestions are overhypothesized. What you complain about is a very unlikely to happen constellation. Every tournament format has said edge cases. They are anyways super unlikely to happen. And even if it happens in 1 of 200 tournaments, people will just book it under "bad fortune" and move on.
This entire discussion is bullshit. Get out.
Do not forget that every stage has different pools of extremely different skill level that it requires to play. You are comparing apples with peaches.
Any of your suggestions are overhypothesized. What you complain about is a very unlikely to happen constellation. Every tournament format has said edge cases. They are anyways super unlikely to happen. And even if it happens in 1 of 200 tournaments, people will just book it under "bad fortune" and move on.
This entire discussion is bullshit. Get out.