Taiwan!!!!!
台灣要贏阿阿阿
台灣要贏阿阿阿
forum
osu! World Cup 2014 - Discussion Thread
posted
Total Posts
1,140
I'm not saying you should have it all sorted, but if you have some sort of idea who will be in it (I'm sure you could pick 4 or so players even a month before the announcement), you could get a base team down, then submit modifications later on in the month.Silynn wrote:
It's something I personally would rather deal with when it happens, also, a lot of the US players have been on the edge of whether they will play or not. Along with that, there are a few players who have risen in ranking recently that I need to talk to and assess before deciding whether they get a spot on the team or not.
Basically, it's better to do these things "in the moment" rather than in advance, when people can't fully commit and I don't have all the information I need to form the best team. There's a reason we're given 3 weeks, I would like to think.
Also, some people are kind of immature.. so deciding the team beforehand will cause drama when they get left out (which I don't want to deal with. And yes, this happens.)
As for the drama, I have seen more than my fair share of this going on with the Australian team. But really, you shouldn't let that sort of stuff get to your head. If they clearly aren't good enough to play in the OWC, then they shouldn't. There are only 8 spots, so some people need to understand they can't always be included.
You totally missed what I said.Bauxe wrote:
you could get a base team down, then submit modifications later on in the month.
I just heard that Loctav only accepts finalized rosters.
I'm not saying I can't submit a provisional one now.
One and only.Ivan wrote:
lol indian gonna win
yay go Canada! \o/
*slowly raises hand towards silynn* u-uhm..
I'm always here for you as a backup (looks down shyly)
I'm always here for you as a backup (looks down shyly)
BRASILfabriciorby wrote:
oh boy
hope it is not 3 am in the morning like MWC...orz everyone sleeping- [ U z z I ] - wrote:
One and only.Ivan wrote:
lol indian gonna win
yay go Canada! \o/
Oh misread. But I figured this means you can change the team:Silynn wrote:
You totally missed what I said.Bauxe wrote:
you could get a base team down, then submit modifications later on in the month.
I just heard that Loctav only accepts finalized rosters.
I'm not saying I can't submit a provisional one now.
For team sign ups, fill out this form. Then, verify your registration by sending a PM to Loctav titled “OWC Registration”Captains may change their setup
by notifying the management.
edit: and this...
If you have any changes you wish to make during the registration phase, request it via a PM.
I was shown this image ~ http://puu.sh/bWqRy/f34d164348.jpgBauxe wrote:
Oh misread. But I figured this means you can change the team:
For team sign ups, fill out this form. Then, verify your registration by sending a PM to Loctav titled “OWC Registration”Captains may change their setup
by notifying the management.
edit: and this...
If you have any changes you wish to make during the registration phase, request it via a PM.
I would like to address an issue regarding the rules of the ranking system used in the group stages of the OWC.
I have addressed this all in last year's post so here is the link to that.
p/2660626/
The rules regarding group stages has remained unchanged since last year so this issue still holds.
I hope that you reconsider the current ranking system. Thanks.
I have addressed this all in last year's post so here is the link to that.
p/2660626/
A Copy of the Post
In short the third priority criteria for ranking, " 3. Most maps won. " will always place the team with a lower win percentage as the higher ranked team.I would like to address an issue regarding the rankings for group stages.
Just for reference
Quote:
Rankings of each group are determined by sorting the results of each team's performance in the following priority:
1. Most matches won.
2. Have higher {(the number of maps won) - (the number of maps defeated)}.
3. Most maps won.
4. Have higher ∑{(total score difference) / (maximum score)}.
5. Winner of the rematch.
I believe that number 3 may need to be revised.Intuitively, winning more maps seems deserving of a higher rank, it's important to note that it is only taken into account if the two higher priority results (matches won, and maps won to maps lost) are equal. If two teams were equal in matches won, and equal in maps won - maps lost, this current ranking system would declare the team with the lower win/loss ratio as the team with the higher rank.
For example
Let's say there is a group consisting of 4 teams facing each other in best of 7 matches, so each team plays a total 3 matches. In this group there are two teams, Alpha team and Gold team. Alpha team wins 2 matches 4-3 and 4-3, and loses one 3-4. Gold team wins two matches 4-2, 4-3, and loses one 2-4.
In this case both teams have won two matches and lost one. So they are equal in most matches won (priority number 1). Alpha team has won a total of 11 maps and lost 10, while Gold team has won 10 maps and lost 9. Thus in regards to priority number 2 (Have higher {(the number of maps won) - (the number of maps defeated)}.) They are equal as well.
This means that we must go the number 3, most maps won. Alpha team has 11 wins as opposed to Gold teams 10, thus Alpha team would be the higher rank. But there is a problem here, Alpha team has played a total of 21 maps and won 11 of them. Alpha team's win rate is 11/21 or about 52.4%, on the other hand Gold team's win rate is 10/19 or about 52.6%. While these values may seem close, what's important is that Gold team has won a greater percentage of their matches.
In fact no matter what numbers you produce, if you assume results 1 and 2 of two teams to be equal, the team with the lower percentage of wins, and consequently the higher percentage of losses, will be the higher ranked team.
I believe that priority number 3 should be changed to the team with the higher percentage of wins as that would be a better reflection of which team is more deserving of the higher rank.
Just for reference
Quote:
Rankings of each group are determined by sorting the results of each team's performance in the following priority:
1. Most matches won.
2. Have higher {(the number of maps won) - (the number of maps defeated)}.
3. Most maps won.
4. Have higher ∑{(total score difference) / (maximum score)}.
5. Winner of the rematch.
I believe that number 3 may need to be revised.Intuitively, winning more maps seems deserving of a higher rank, it's important to note that it is only taken into account if the two higher priority results (matches won, and maps won to maps lost) are equal. If two teams were equal in matches won, and equal in maps won - maps lost, this current ranking system would declare the team with the lower win/loss ratio as the team with the higher rank.
For example
Let's say there is a group consisting of 4 teams facing each other in best of 7 matches, so each team plays a total 3 matches. In this group there are two teams, Alpha team and Gold team. Alpha team wins 2 matches 4-3 and 4-3, and loses one 3-4. Gold team wins two matches 4-2, 4-3, and loses one 2-4.
In this case both teams have won two matches and lost one. So they are equal in most matches won (priority number 1). Alpha team has won a total of 11 maps and lost 10, while Gold team has won 10 maps and lost 9. Thus in regards to priority number 2 (Have higher {(the number of maps won) - (the number of maps defeated)}.) They are equal as well.
This means that we must go the number 3, most maps won. Alpha team has 11 wins as opposed to Gold teams 10, thus Alpha team would be the higher rank. But there is a problem here, Alpha team has played a total of 21 maps and won 11 of them. Alpha team's win rate is 11/21 or about 52.4%, on the other hand Gold team's win rate is 10/19 or about 52.6%. While these values may seem close, what's important is that Gold team has won a greater percentage of their matches.
In fact no matter what numbers you produce, if you assume results 1 and 2 of two teams to be equal, the team with the lower percentage of wins, and consequently the higher percentage of losses, will be the higher ranked team.
I believe that priority number 3 should be changed to the team with the higher percentage of wins as that would be a better reflection of which team is more deserving of the higher rank.
The rules regarding group stages has remained unchanged since last year so this issue still holds.
I hope that you reconsider the current ranking system. Thanks.
win % is a higher priority though, since the team that has more wins than losses difference is going to be prioritised
There isn't a single decent player doing the commentary, it will probably suck unless they do some research.
Can't you at least find one "expert" like it happens everywhere? D:
Can't you at least find one "expert" like it happens everywhere? D:
if big k and hvick didnt make their roster scary enough, Rucker and his stupid high consistency is probably going to be the biggest factor especially on getting to the finals. unless dungeon comes out of left field with the combos i dont even think korea will make it to the finals...
im really excited to see Rucker play again, he was my favorite player last owc with how hard he almost carried his team to 1st, and now that his team doesnt even really NEED to be carried he's just going to be extra horsepower on an engine that was already fixed on victory.
im really excited to see Rucker play again, he was my favorite player last owc with how hard he almost carried his team to 1st, and now that his team doesnt even really NEED to be carried he's just going to be extra horsepower on an engine that was already fixed on victory.
Dungeon mia 2 yearsRiince wrote:
if big k and hvick didnt make their roster scary enough, Rucker and his stupid high consistency is probably going to be the biggest factor especially on getting to the finals. unless dungeon comes out of left field with the combos i dont even think korea will make it to the finals...
oh yeah military serviceMelt3dCheeze wrote:
Dungeon mia 2 yearsRiince wrote:
if big k and hvick didnt make their roster scary enough, Rucker and his stupid high consistency is probably going to be the biggest factor especially on getting to the finals. unless dungeon comes out of left field with the combos i dont even think korea will make it to the finals...
Damn... I guess that's all she wrote for Korea this year then.
I don't know actually, but he left during conscription season and they start between ages 18 - 35 and goes for 2-3 years sooo ;______;Riince wrote:
well shit if dungeon isnt going to play at all i dont think korea will even make it to semis...
if anybody was the consistent one it was snowwhite, he broke combo only like once before the finalsRiince wrote:
if big k and hvick didnt make their roster scary enough, Rucker and his stupid high consistency is probably going to be the biggest factor especially on getting to the finals. unless dungeon comes out of left field with the combos i dont even think korea will make it to the finals...
im really excited to see Rucker play again, he was my favorite player last owc with how hard he almost carried his team to 1st, and now that his team doesnt even really NEED to be carried he's just going to be extra horsepower on an engine that was already fixed on victory.
yeah but you cant deny rucker kept them in it during the finals
at least, if memory serves.
at least, if memory serves.
Go commies :^)-Soba- wrote:
Go 'murika!!!!!
wow... and to think I once called you a friendMy Accuracy Sucks wrote:
Go commies :^)-Soba- wrote:
Go 'murika!!!!!
I'll do it, for obvious reasons.AmaiHachimitsu wrote:
There isn't a single decent player doing the commentary, it will probably suck unless they do some research.
Can't you at least find one "expert" like it happens everywhere? D:
I don't know of any people who can commentate and play well. I hope there's somebody out there.
Wait what Mr.Color won't be commentating?
/didn'treadthethread
/didn'treadthethread
wasn't there some talk about lewa and jesse commentating? why don't we make that happen?AmaiHachimitsu wrote:
There isn't a single decent player doing the commentary, it will probably suck unless they do some research.
Can't you at least find one "expert" like it happens everywhere? D:
in the matches I saw, Rucker was the one who was more consistent.silmarilen wrote:
if anybody was the consistent one it was snowwhite, he broke combo only like once before the finals
But if the matches won and subsequently wins, losses difference is the same, only then is that third rule used. In that case the team with the lower win percentage will be higher ranked.buny wrote:
win % is a higher priority though, since the team that has more wins than losses difference is going to be prioritised
Also, coming from you, that hurts. Considering that you were the first to respond last year, and you approved of it since you actually read it that time. p/2660641
I exist.Omgforz wrote:
I don't know of any people who can commentate and play well. I hope there's somebody out there.
requesting kriers
Cookiezi made a new country just to play in the owc. He'll be playing all 4 player spots alone. It was his plan all along
Why not play and occasionally commentate some of the matches? There's plenty of good players with high English skills that would be suitable for this (you're one of them).Omgforz wrote:
I don't know of any people who can commentate and play well. I hope there's somebody out there.
Or you can always invite some native British or American speakers that are skilled, but not participating in the tournament.
+1silmarilen wrote:
requesting kriers
think of it this way,Angusman wrote:
But if the matches won and subsequently wins, losses difference is the same, only then is that third rule used. In that case the team with the lower win percentage will be higher ranked.buny wrote:
win % is a higher priority though, since the team that has more wins than losses difference is going to be prioritised
Also, coming from you, that hurts. Considering that you were the first to respond last year, and you approved of it since you actually read it that time. p/2660641
there is a possibility to win from 0 to 12 maps, which is the main focus of the prioritisation
sure they could have the same (maps won - maps loss), but the team with the most maps won should win. Why? Because they had scores closer to winning than the other team.
If the teams were playing BO1 instead of BO7, it would be a different story because that's directly correlated to win%.
you could probably pm loctav for a direct answer, since i'm only speculating
and how did you derive to the conclusion that I approved it? I didn't mention anything about my thought on it and it should have been clearly obvious that was a trash post
What about Australian speakers? :O Don't count us out!fartownik wrote:
Or you can always invite some native British or American speakers that are skilled, but not participating in the tournament.
We need commentators as energetic as this http://youtu.be/6q83gj8kFco?t=20sAmaiHachimitsu wrote:
There isn't a single decent player doing the commentary, it will probably suck unless they do some research.
Can't you at least find one "expert" like it happens everywhere? D:
Although, the only thing we would hear would be "COMBO DROP" occasionally.
Loctav, can we get a running status on the teams who have already signed up? We're in the dark here on how much time we have left since 32 spots is really limited for the world.
Topic Starter
If you wish to change your roster, send me a PM and resubmit your roster. Anyways, do this only in case someone in your team hops off or refuses to play (that's why you can still change it).
You don't need to save slots or whatever bullshit. There is no "first come, first serve". The most competitive teams registered will be accepted. The teams will be released after registration phase.
Leaving you in the dark is intended.
You don't need to save slots or whatever bullshit. There is no "first come, first serve". The most competitive teams registered will be accepted. The teams will be released after registration phase.
Leaving you in the dark is intended.
#hypeblocker