wher gon longgone for malaysia, i require team stepmania
forum
osu!mania 4K World Cup - Discussion Thread 2d114u
posted
Total Posts
189
Fk team stepmania.
Bumping this question. Loctav?Tidek wrote: 6p6i2l
Anyway, I have a question about drawings, there will be seeds or random drawings like last year? If there will be seeds, then how countries will be sorted? because you cant sort players skill lvl by pp mainly because 75% of mania pp is from 7k and it has nothing to do with 4k (USA players or Staiain or a lot of 4k solo players better than most of players in top50 lol)
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: 5o3v72
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: 5b1v22
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: 4h2pe
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: 6p6i2l
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: 2x5s6v
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: 5o4t51
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: 5b1v22
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: 5o4t51
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: 4h2pe
... 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.