|
The double elimination style they use, that is. Take a 4-player group.
Player A is a bonjwa who can beat almost anyone.
Player B and Player C are good players with about 50% win rate in proleague. B is slightly better and would likely take a Bo3 off C.
Player D is a B-teamer who cheesed his way through prelims.
The first round is:
A vs D
B vs C
Since A is so much better than D, the second round will be (assuming B beats C):
A vs B
D vs C
The final match is a rematch of B vs C, again due to skill differences.
Say C wins this match. He's a little weaker, but players often lose single sets to slightly weaker players. C is now 2-1 and advancing, and B is now 1-2 and out of the MSL. The problem is that C never proved he was better than B. They went 1-1 against each other and never played a common opponent.
I'm not going to check this for a few days since I'm not caught up on the MSL yet and I have a feeling this thread's going to get spoiler-y.
  
|
how about this format?
Player A is bonjwa and plays Terran. Player B plays zerg and is known for using his 2-hat lurker build every game. They play a Bo3.
Player B goes 4-pool twice and wins both.
No matter what the format is, sometimes, the 'less good' player wins. There's no perfect format.
the good thing about the MSL format is that it gives a clear 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in just 5 games.
|
On December 04 2009 12:04 Sunyveil wrote:
how about this format?
Player A is bonjwa and plays Terran. Player B plays zerg and is known for using his 2-hat lurker build every game. They play a Bo3.
Player B goes 4-pool twice and wins both.
No matter what the format is, sometimes, the 'less good' player wins. There's no perfect format.
the good thing about the MSL format is that it gives a clear 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in just 5 games.
But in your case Player B went 2-0 against Player A. If they went 1-1, they'd play a 3rd match, not rely on who won last. It doesn't give a clear 2nd and 3rd all the time, look at the IeSF group with Yellow, oov, and Reach.
|
I like this format a lot. Good players don't neccessarily eliminate each other early on since there is a second chance and the rematch is a very interesting thing imho, lots of tension.
|
Player A is a very good Protoss player who has an annoying habit of underestimating his opponents in the group stages of individual leagues.
Player B is a up-and-coming Protoss player who has promise but has yet to prove himself in any league, individual or team.
Player C was once the greatest Zerg in the world.
Player D is one of the countless mid-level Terrans with good mechanics and a preference for long macro games.
Blogger E believes that there is some other way for Players A, B, C, and D to prove that they are better or worse than one another than winning and losing games against each other. Blogger E makes a blog post F expressing this belief without putting forward an alternative format because there isn't one.
Star G is a lonely star. He's blue, but the four stars to his right are gray. He curses blog post F and blogger E and wishes he could disappear and become a gray star just like all the others.
|
On December 04 2009 12:19 IPS.ZeRo wrote:
I like this format a lot. Good players don't neccessarily eliminate each other early on since there is a second chance and the rematch is a very interesting thing imho, lots of tension.
But if they end up 1-1, why leave it there? Would a final final match be that bad?
|
On December 04 2009 12:21 EvoChamber wrote:
Player A is a very good Protoss player who has an annoying habit of underestimating his opponents in the group stages of individual leagues.
Player B is a up-and-coming Protoss player who has promise but has yet to prove himself in any league, individual or team.
Player C was once the greatest Zerg in the world.
Player D is one of the countless mid-level Terrans with good mechanics and a preference for long macro games.
Blogger E believes that there is some other way for Players A, B, C, and D to prove that they are better or worse than one another than winning and losing games against each other. Blogger E makes a blog post F expressing this belief without putting forward an alternative format because there isn't one.
There's a very clear alternative format. Have a final game between the two players who split their sets.
|
And why is the burden of coming up with an "alternative format" on me? The group stages of the OSL and any BoX don't have the problem in the OP. A simple tiebreaker match would help the MSL.
|
On December 04 2009 12:04 Sunyveil wrote:
how about this format?
Player A is bonjwa and plays Terran. Player B plays zerg and is known for using his 2-hat lurker build every game. They play a Bo3.
Player B goes 4-pool twice and wins both.
No matter what the format is, sometimes, the 'less good' player wins. There's no perfect format.
the good thing about the MSL format is that it gives a clear 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in just 5 games.
no need to single luxury out
|
On December 04 2009 12:21 EvoChamber wrote:
Player A is a very good Protoss player who has an annoying habit of underestimating his opponents in the group stages of individual leagues.
Player B is a up-and-coming Protoss player who has promise but has yet to prove himself in any league, individual or team.
Player C was once the greatest Zerg in the world.
Player D is one of the countless mid-level Terrans with good mechanics and a preference for long macro games.
Blogger E believes that there is some other way for Players A, B, C, and D to prove that they are better or worse than one another than winning and losing games against each other. Blogger E makes a blog post F expressing this belief without putting forward an alternative format because there isn't one.
Star G is a lonely star. He's blue, but the four stars to his right are gray. He curses blog post F and blogger E and wishes he could disappear and become a gray star just like all the others.
So very awesome. Hat's off to you, sir.
|
i hate the ro32 format. it should just be bo3 until ro8 or whatever. the elimination format hurts players who have to prepare for multiple races and it encourages cheesing
|
On December 04 2009 13:13 CaptainPlatypus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2009 12:21 EvoChamber wrote:
Player A is a very good Protoss player who has an annoying habit of underestimating his opponents in the group stages of individual leagues.
Player B is a up-and-coming Protoss player who has promise but has yet to prove himself in any league, individual or team.
Player C was once the greatest Zerg in the world.
Player D is one of the countless mid-level Terrans with good mechanics and a preference for long macro games.
Blogger E believes that there is some other way for Players A, B, C, and D to prove that they are better or worse than one another than winning and losing games against each other. Blogger E makes a blog post F expressing this belief without putting forward an alternative format because there isn't one.
Star G is a lonely star. He's blue, but the four stars to his right are gray. He curses blog post F and blogger E and wishes he could disappear and become a gray star just like all the others. So very awesome. Hat's off to you, sir.
Why did neither of you read the OP
|
On December 04 2009 13:23 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2009 13:13 CaptainPlatypus wrote:On December 04 2009 12:21 EvoChamber wrote:
Player A is a very good Protoss player who has an annoying habit of underestimating his opponents in the group stages of individual leagues.
Player B is a up-and-coming Protoss player who has promise but has yet to prove himself in any league, individual or team.
Player C was once the greatest Zerg in the world.
Player D is one of the countless mid-level Terrans with good mechanics and a preference for long macro games.
Blogger E believes that there is some other way for Players A, B, C, and D to prove that they are better or worse than one another than winning and losing games against each other. Blogger E makes a blog post F expressing this belief without putting forward an alternative format because there isn't one.
Star G is a lonely star. He's blue, but the four stars to his right are gray. He curses blog post F and blogger E and wishes he could disappear and become a gray star just like all the others. So very awesome. Hat's off to you, sir. Why did neither of you read the OP
That was a pretty accurate summary of your blog post, which was pretty bad by the way. What would your alternative be?
|
adding a tiebreaker like the osl
why do you consider the blog post bad?
|
OSL group stages (round robin w/tiebreakers) are an obvious alternative to MSL group stages. However, they take longer. In the OSL group stages, it matters what group you're in. In MSL group stages, it matters what group you're in AND which opponent you're initially paired up with.
|
On December 04 2009 13:59 Severedevil wrote:
OSL group stages (round robin w/tiebreakers) are an obvious alternative to MSL group stages. However, they take longer. In the OSL group stages, it matters what group you're in. In MSL group stages, it matters what group you're in AND which opponent you're initially paired up with.
Well OSL group stages can last forever technically.
An MSL double elimination with a tiebreaker would be 6 games max.
|
The thing is, MSL groups are like a double elimination bracket more than a group in the truest sense. Look at it.
Match 1: A v B
Match 2: C v D
Match 3: W1 v W2
Match 4: L1 v L2
Match 5: W4 v L3
Imagine it like this if Matches 6 & 7 were gone, and that's the way it is meant to come across. It is not a true group stage at all, it's just they are grouped in a mini qualifier bracket for the real MSL bracket (Ro16 -> Onwards)
|
I get the reasoning for eliminating match 6, since it's meant to advance 2 players. Just not 7.
|
Match 7 is solely there for double elimination purposes - you only play it if in match 6 the winner of the lower bracket beat the winner of the upper bracket, because the winner of the upper bracket is then 2-1 and thus not eliminated twice (the purpose of double elimination). You can't have 7 without 6... did you read the actual graphic?
|
No just something in the style of match 7 where they have a tiebreaker between two players who each take a match off each other.
|
On December 04 2009 14:53 jalstar wrote:
No just something in the style of match 7 where they have a tiebreaker between two players who each take a match off each other.
I'm posting once more then leaving this blog because I question your mental capacity.
MSL group stages are DOUBLE ELIMINATION. That means, once you lose twice, you are out. It doesn't matter who is 1-1 vs. who, whoever loses twice is the loser. If you have a problem with the MSL group stages, then you have a problem with every double elimination bracket known to man.
This could happen in ANY double elim bracket - Player A beats Player B in the Round of 16, later loses to C in the Round of 4. Player B whacked through the lower bracket until he meets Player A again. He beats him. A is out, B moves on. But in your screwed up logic, there should be a tiebreaker because versus each other, they are 1-1.
That is not the point of a bracket. That is the point of a Bo3 or a group stage.
|
"But in your screwed up logic, there should be a tiebreaker because versus each other, they are 1-1."
Screwed up? The winner's bracket is harder than the loser's bracket, so it's far more likely for a player to lose there.
I guess I do have a problem with double elimination in general because it matters when you lose. Take the recent IeSF between oov, Yellow, Chrh, and Reach. oov beat Reach in the initial game but lost in the final game. For me, it doesn't matter that oov lost to Yellow or Reach beat Chrh, because neither got to play the same opponent, and we don't know if Reach would have beaten Yellow or oov to Chrh. The only information we have as to who was better than the other was that they're 1-1 against each other. Why not have a final game?
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 04 2009 13:53 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2009 13:23 jalstar wrote:On December 04 2009 13:13 CaptainPlatypus wrote:On December 04 2009 12:21 EvoChamber wrote:
Player A is a very good Protoss player who has an annoying habit of underestimating his opponents in the group stages of individual leagues.
Player B is a up-and-coming Protoss player who has promise but has yet to prove himself in any league, individual or team.
Player C was once the greatest Zerg in the world.
Player D is one of the countless mid-level Terrans with good mechanics and a preference for long macro games.
Blogger E believes that there is some other way for Players A, B, C, and D to prove that they are better or worse than one another than winning and losing games against each other. Blogger E makes a blog post F expressing this belief without putting forward an alternative format because there isn't one.
Star G is a lonely star. He's blue, but the four stars to his right are gray. He curses blog post F and blogger E and wishes he could disappear and become a gray star just like all the others. So very awesome. Hat's off to you, sir. Why did neither of you read the OP That was a pretty accurate summary of your blog post, which was pretty bad by the way. What would your alternative be?
Except for the fact that he explicitly said he's not caught up on MSL. That would imply that EvoChamber's characterizations about why he made this blog post are moot because if he hasn't watched those games yet, he couldn't possibly follow the logic EvoChamber thinks he followed.
|
On December 04 2009 13:16 lazz wrote:
i hate the ro32 format. it should just be bo3 until ro8 or whatever. the elimination format hurts players who have to prepare for multiple races and it encourages cheesing
I strongly agree with this.
GOMTV showed us that we still had a few fluke players up in the RO8, but generally the best players tended to win or get to the finals (JD, Flash 2x, Bisu, Jangbi,etc).
|
But it's also boring. Variety is good.
|
Player B and Player C are good players with about 50% win rate in proleague.
And it doesn't really matter because neither of them should win the league.
There are flaws with any system, but the MSL does a fair enough job as quickly as possible.
|
Maybe this is why MSL is not as popular in Korea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.mysportsbrackets.com/tournament_brackets/4teamde.jpg)
