EPTI previously blogged about MLG’s unpopular rule Extended Series. Rather than simply criticize, my goal with the post was to explore why MLG might have put ES into practice (it’s not common), why they would stubbornly stick with it despite consistent community outcry, and the idea that the concepts behind a quality tournament structure are not universal to all games. This got lost in the haze of my fuzzy ideas and the debate of my impressions of other esport games. For this and also because actually writing the article (as writing often does) helped evolve and clarify my views on the subject (i.e. even though I wrote the article it’s still on my mind), I thought I would revisit the topic.
- I will never be in favor of structures or rules that give one player in a match a dramatic advantage over his opponent.
This is not to say I am against any advantage (such as seeding or earned byes) in any situation. However, I do not like the idea of an isolated match between two players beginning on an uneven playing field. If one player has truly performed so much better than his prospective opponent that to not award him a large advantage would be unfair, then they shouldn’t even be playing.
From the perspective of a spectator, it’s not suspenseful to watch the player who is already an underdog futilely attempt to make a near-impossible come back. It’s exciting and memorable when it actually happens, but won’t happen often enough to stick around to see many of those exciting and memorable moments.
For me, though, it’s more than that. It’s something I have difficulty putting into words — a matter of taste, if you will. Other forms of advantages may change who a player faces and when or skip ahead a stage in a tournament, but these advantages do not disrupt any individual match between two players, so I do not find these rules to be disagreeable. To me, each match has an identity outside the tournament of which it is a part. A single bout between two entities. An advantage for one is like penalizing the other, and the match loses significance. A bye, on the other hand, doesn’t feel so personal. Even though I’m well aware of the value a bye can have (as far as increasing a players’ probability of winning), the penalty is shared amongst all the players who don’t receive byes and the integrity of individual match results are preserved.
Ultimately, I guess the idea doesn’t mesh with my idea of sportsmanship or sportsmanlike conduct — a true warrior should prefer a clean victory that began on even footing and welcome the opportunity to prove himself. Clamoring for an advantage no matter how deserved strikes me as… well, petty.
- I do not agree that ES is illogical from the perspective of tournament accuracy.
The losers bracket in double elimination adds a third category: players who are considered to be worse than those in the winners bracket, but better than those who were eliminated. It also recognizes that, unlike eliminated players, the tournament is still not entirely sure where these players stand. The structure thinks that they are worse and will be eliminated soon, but it has an open mind.
When two players rematch in the losers bracket, a traditional double elimination bracket has estimated these players to be in parallel. Even though there is already a result between the two players, the structure does not take that into account — the subsequent performance of the two players since their match is what matters and that subsequent performance has put them in the same group. Having a rematch does not bother the tournament, since if the loser of the previous match wins the new match, it suggests that the players are more or less equal in skill. If two players are roughly equal, then it doesn’t matter which one of them continues since it will make little difference in the average skill of players in the next round. Should the previous winner win once again, the tournament feels no sympathy for the loser since it kind of figured he was on his way out anyway. After all, the guy that beat him in the first place has lost once by now.
The tournament has the same impression of every player grouped together in a round and losing to one is no different than losing to another. The tournament doesn’t worry about the chance that a better player might lose, because its entire method for estimation is built on the premise that the better player will win. Maybe a few outliers slip through the cracks and get a drastically incorrect ranking? “No big deal,” says the tournament, “I’m just guessing, bro”. Algorithms are laid back dudes, they don’t get stressed out by the occasional boo boo.
Simply from the perspective of tournament accuracy, adding ES into the mix is perfectly reasonable. The players face off because the winning player is assumed to be better — if there’s already a result between them, why not take it into account? In fact, it would be also reasonable to not even play the rematch and just carry over the results from the first meeting, or to create a super extended series based on all results between the two players over the last month. The tournament just wants to know which of the two players is better so it can refine its estimations. Sure, this sucks for the player with the short end of the stick. “Too bad”, says the tournament. “You hate, I estimate’”
If the question is “which of these two players is better?”, previous matches are perfectly relevant. They certainly aren’t random or arbitrary. You could criticize previous results for not being current. Even over a single weekend tournament, the second match could reflect factors such as fatigue. You could also criticize a single match for not being statistically significant. Ultimately, when it comes to the math ES as applied by MLG doesn’t make much of a difference either way. Arguing about it is a waste of breath and only serves to cloud much more important criticisms. If you think it makes the tournament less enjoyable to watch or play, well then I’ll just have to go ahead and have to agree with you. Deal with it.
- I will only insist that ES is truly unjust in one particular situation.
Similarly, I don’t feel the ES rematch between Oz and Alicia was unjust either. Everyone else in their bracket has been eliminated, and ES is used in place of the traditional win twice system. While it’s uncomfortable to choose between two things one doesn’t like, I actually prefer this to the common system. While superficial, it seems so silly when, after several games, the score resets to 0-0.
In Bracket 2 on the other hand, there was a rematch between aLive and Daisy. At this point of the bracket, GanZi and First were also viable opponents. Forcing Daisy to play at aLive from a disadvantage rather than playing GanZi or First is unjust. The tournament structure typically only eliminates players after they lose to two different opponents, except when they advance far enough that a second unique, parallel opponent is not available. If Daisy loses twice to aLive, all the tournament really knows is that he is worse than aLive — this isn’t quite as accurate as when the two losses are to two different players. If a rematch occurs, the only way to avoid this problem is if the results are different the second time around. Extended series exacerbates this problem (just a little) since it makes a repeated result more likely.
The same thing happened to Dream at the previous MLG Arena.
- ES in MLG’s Championship format is a little more complicated.
Pool players are in a different boat. Finishing first place in the group will grant a player two “lives” in the elimination stage of the tournament along with the other three group winners. Whether or not the player went undefeated to win his group is not relevant. All other pool players (along with the few remaining players from the open bracket) are given one “life” in the elimination stage regardless of how many losses they accrued during the group stage — the rewards for fewer losses are metered out with byes rather than points toward elimination.
This massive advantage given to players in the group stage amid a needlessly and ridiculously complicated format makes it hard to sympathize when these situations arise since, after all, being in the pool is still a big advantage over the majority of players. In the 2012 Winter Championship, for example, Socke had a rematch against HuK starting down 0-2 when there were several other viable opponents. But, Socke had already lost four matches (including the one to HuK) so far in the tournament.
Of course, it will still be better if rematches were avoided when there are available alternatives. But I hesitate to call the above situation (or ones like it) truly unjust.
- As needed randomized pairing is a simple, ad-hoc solution.
As discussed earlier, every player in parallel is considered equal as far as an elimination bracket is concerned. Remaking the pairings in the event of a rematch is not somehow unfair or biased. In fact, regenerating the pairings for unique match-ups would actually increase the accuracy of the tournament’s results ever so slightly (ES or not).
Let’s use the Daisy example from above. Instead of Daisy vs. aLive (the rematch) and GanZi vs. First, First vs. Daisy/aLive vs. GanZi and GanZi vs. Daisy/aLive vs. First are both unique pairings. The tournament administrator could choose one of the two at random to use instead. Not only does this avoid victimizing Daisy, it’s more entertaining to watch. It’s a win-win-win.
- But hey, it’s still not up to me.
