Let me figure out who signed up first and what teams we actually have. Then we can figure out a proper way to seed them, not dumbingly doing this by pp, as pp considers 4k, 7k, converts and whatever else
forum
osu!mania 4K World Cup - Discussion Thread 1611f
posted
Total Posts
189
I think this will be revealed when the teams are 100% decided. Right now I think captains still has not been selected. Probably we will have to wait until this sunday at least, to know the countries that participatesNelly wrote: 5f6k5k
Loctav I think you should say the players who had ed for the time.
We updated the wiki page and published all rosters just now!
Drawings will be held this Sunday, 16th August 2015 at 14:00 UTC+0. After that, we will show off the Group Stage mappool. Tomorrow, we will sort the teams into their respective seedings and release the result on the wiki page.
Drawings will be held this Sunday, 16th August 2015 at 14:00 UTC+0. After that, we will show off the Group Stage mappool. Tomorrow, we will sort the teams into their respective seedings and release the result on the wiki page.
We will see a map pool showcase like in CWC?Loctav wrote: 4r5h2e
We updated the wiki page and published all rosters just now!
Drawings will be held this Sunday, 16th August 2015 at 14:00 UTC+0. After that, we will show off the Group Stage mappool. Tomorrow, we will sort the teams into their respective seedings and release the result on the wiki page.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not the biggest fan of the map pool myself as a player, but you have to suck it up and deal with it. For those of you who are on this ridiculous notion that the map-pool is over-saturated:
... I dunno, I think people are blowing things out of proportion.
Qualia [MX]: S. Star3x Spy, 2x Starry, 2x Victorica, 2x SanadaYukimura, 1x Simple Star, 1x LovinYou, 1x Fresh Chicken, 1x Taiwan-NAK, 1x Feerum
Gigadelic: Starry
Gravity Soul: Victorica
Asu no Yozora Shoukaihan: LovinYou
Creutz=Wilknare: SanadaYukimura
Dadadadadadadadadada: Victorica
HEAVENLY MOON: Spy
Shanghai Kouchakan ~ Chinese Tea Orchid Remix: SanadaYukimura
Yellow Smile: Starry
Invitation from Mr. C: Fresh Chicken
Trigger Happy: Spy
Ambitious: Spy
Water Horizon: Victorica
ETIA. - Nihonshiki Koukaku-OukaRanman-: Taiwan-NAK
Kanshou no Matenrou: Feerum
... I dunno, I think people are blowing things out of proportion.
3x victorica*
5/14 of mappool is from Spy's mapsets and 1 victorica mapset (but of course Spy and victorica are friends).
In my opinion its just not very professional as a mappicker to pick a lot of own maps (or friend maps), i can understand 1, maybe 2 maps, but not almost 50% of mappool, damn.
Also, there is a lot better and playable version of dadadada by PiraTom and maps like trigger happy are extremely focused only on one extreme difficulty spike (burst on intro) where rest of map is easy, tie breaker is also very questionable, because it only depends on 123412341234 bursts.
And yeah, I will have to deal with maps, but 1/16 round will be just ugly to watch (and play).
5/14 of mappool is from Spy's mapsets and 1 victorica mapset (but of course Spy and victorica are friends).
In my opinion its just not very professional as a mappicker to pick a lot of own maps (or friend maps), i can understand 1, maybe 2 maps, but not almost 50% of mappool, damn.
Also, there is a lot better and playable version of dadadada by PiraTom and maps like trigger happy are extremely focused only on one extreme difficulty spike (burst on intro) where rest of map is easy, tie breaker is also very questionable, because it only depends on 123412341234 bursts.
And yeah, I will have to deal with maps, but 1/16 round will be just ugly to watch (and play).
So, I ended up taking a screenshot of how our team was keeping scores organized and checking on everyone's progress on the maps, and a few people expressed interest in wanting something like this for their teams as well:
Anyway, I didn't want to just go ahead and release it to a few people that I knew through a common Skype chat, so for fairness' sake, I'm releasing it to everyone that is interested here.
Click here for the spreadsheet.
Go to File and Make a Copy so that the spreadsheet can be directly cloned to your for free editing. Do not touch cells Q1/R1/S1 -- they are responsible for the data validation. Hopefully this will help in organizing things for some teams!
Anyway, I didn't want to just go ahead and release it to a few people that I knew through a common Skype chat, so for fairness' sake, I'm releasing it to everyone that is interested here.
Click here for the spreadsheet.
Go to File and Make a Copy so that the spreadsheet can be directly cloned to your for free editing. Do not touch cells Q1/R1/S1 -- they are responsible for the data validation. Hopefully this will help in organizing things for some teams!
I don't have too many issues with this map pool as a player; the only map that I really dislike in this pool is TRIGGER*HAPPY, but it's one of my higher scores so... *shrug*
Despite the previous posts and whatnot, I think the pool itself is quite diverse in of mapping style.
EDIT: actually, that's a white lie, I also personally detest Violet Soul, haha
Despite the previous posts and whatnot, I think the pool itself is quite diverse in of mapping style.
EDIT: actually, that's a white lie, I also personally detest Violet Soul, haha
Hah, nice. I was doing similiar thing for group stage in my team. Unfortunately I was just using only piece of paper and pen xDHalogen- wrote: v6q34
So, I ended up taking a screenshot of how our team was keeping scores organized and checking on everyone's progress on the maps, and a few people expressed interest in wanting something like this for their teams as well:
Anyway, I didn't want to just go ahead and release it to a few people that I knew through a common Skype chat, so for fairness' sake, I'm releasing it to everyone that is interested here.
Click here for the spreadsheet.
Go to File and Make a Copy so that the spreadsheet can be directly cloned to your for free editing. Do not touch cells Q1/R1/S1 -- they are responsible for the data validation. Hopefully this will help in organizing things for some teams!
Well, now you don't have to waste that precious ink and strain your hands!Tidek wrote: 2h282d
Hah, nice. I was doing similiar thing for group stage in my team. Unfortunately I was just using only piece of paper and pen xD
In all seriousness, it is nice to see that other groups were at least trying to promote organization within their teams. It's really helpful when captains can see everything at a glance.
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*
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: 5u146
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.
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, , 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
Full Tablet wrote: 2h7156
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 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: 4r5h2e
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: 2h7156
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 ittedly 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: v6q34
... 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 ittedly 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 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 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.
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.
Just ignore this if you aren't interested in the discussion, please.Loctav wrote: 4r5h2e
This entire discussion is bullshit. Get out.
This depends on how you define skill. One could define skill in a way that is completely isolated from the effects of the environment, and in that way performance would be dependent on skill+environment+chance+(other possible factors). Another possibility is considering skill as dependent on environment, in this case, "skill during a multiplayer game with the pressure of a possible prize" is something different to "skill during single play without pressure", for example. The relevant skill for the tournament would be "skill during a multiplayer game with the pressure of a possible prize".Loctav wrote: 4r5h2e
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.
The fact that different stages have different map pools, does make using the tournament as a mean of determining a certain kind of skill, that is independent from the tournament format itself, a harder task. In the "amount of birthmarks tournament" analogy, this is similar to changing the winning criteria from stage to stage (for example, in the first stage, it is "most amount of birthmarks in the face wins", while in the second stage it is "most amount of birthmarks in the arms wins"), which makes the relevant skill parameter of each player not be unidimensional anymore.
In practice, there is some correlation between 1 dimension of skill and another (i.e. teams that do well in a certain map pool tend to do also well in another map pool). If the correlation is strong enough, it is possible to consider a unidimensional value for the overall skill of a team; if there is no correlation, then the the overall skill of a team can't be separated from the format of the tournament itself.
The examples were based on an ideal scenario. If a certain method is not reliable on ideal conditions, then the reliability of the method in non-ideal conditions is expected to be even worse in most cases.Loctav wrote: 4r5h2e
tl;dr: all your examples are highly hypothetical and not applicable to anything we do here.
This is analogous to trying to find the triangle with the most area. You could try finding the answer by measuring the perimeter of the triangles, but, even if all measurements are done perfectly, it is possible that the triangle that has the biggest perimeter is not the triangle with the most area. Since the method is not reliable with perfect measurements, it is not reliable either when there is a chance that some of the measurements are wrong.
Whether or not the Double Elimination works perfectly depends on the objectives of the tournament. If the objective is: determine a podium in a "who drop out first, who drop out last" format, then the objective is met indeed (since that is what the tournament literally does).Loctav wrote: 4r5h2e
Double Elimination perfectly works to determine a podium in a simple "who drops out first, who drops out last" format.
But, that doesn't mean it meets other objectives, such as "determining which teams are the best at playing the game in a tournament", or "give entertainment value to the players and spectators".
Because of the format of the tournament, even if the team groups are selected randomly, the overall method is biased (with respect to the result of the third place). There are 2 possibilities:Loctav wrote: 4r5h2e
Nothing is under our control.
- The organizer decides to set up the groups randomly: the decision to do so introduces a probability where the third place is not given to the third best team (which is independent to the uncertainty caused by the fact that a better team doesn't always win against a worse team in a match). This is most likely the case of this tournament.
- The organizer uses a non-random criteria to set up the groups: the 3rd place in the tournament is affected by the criteria used. The third place wouldn't be determined in advance certainly, because of the probability of a better team not always winning against a worse team, but the 3rd place would incline towards a certain result.
In the ideal case where a team always wins against another team if they are more skilled (and it is possible to talk about a one-dimensional measure of skill that is relevant to the competition), and the groups are selected randomly, the probabilities are:Loctav wrote: 4r5h2e
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.
Chances of the Best Team entering the Double Elimination Tournament: 100%
Chances of the 2nd Best Team entering the Double Elimination Tournament: 100%
Chances of the 3rd Best Team entering the Double Elimination Tournament: 154/155 = 99.3548%
With the tournament brackets selected by seed, then:
Chance of the Best Team that entered the Double Elimination Tournament winning 1st place: 100%
Chance of the 2nd Best Team that entered the Double Elimination Tournament winning 2st place: 100%
Chance of the 3rd Best Team that entered the Double Elimination Tournament winning 3st place:
Edit: 100% was in the case with 8 teams, with 16 teams the probability is less than 100%. The probability is approximately 88.5831%.
So, in the ideal case, there is a chance of about 11.9884% of the 3rd best team not winning the 3rd place.
If you are curious, those are the probabilities if the tournament brackets were selected randomly instead of by seed:
Chance of the Best Team that entered the Double Elimination Tournament winning 1st place: 100%
Chance of the 2nd Best Team that entered the Double Elimination Tournament winning 2st place: 100%
Chance of the 3rd Best Team that entered the Double Elimination Tournament winning 3st place: 80%
So, the chance of the 3rd best team not winning the 3rd place is 159/775=20.5161%
Full Tablet wrote: 2h7156
Just ignore this if you aren't interested in the discussion, please.
"yeah tournament organizer, ignore every irrelevant thing that i'm saying about your tournament"
(wall of text directed at said tournament organizer)
oh
In other news: grand finals hype - just under 31 hours to go!