Here's a short (well, I planned on it being short) blog about tiebreakers and their use in eSports tournaments.
Tiebreaking rules are a necessary evil. Tournaments, especially tournaments played over a weekend, don't have time to play extra matches to break ties in group standings. In a tournament system with no scheduling or logistical constraints, extra games would be played in the event of any type of tie. We can see this principle applied in professional sports. Baseball is a sport for which it is fairly easy to play an impromptu, unscheduled game. In baseball, an extra match is played in the event that two teams lie atop the standings of their division. However, in the NFL (as with most sports), an elaborate series of tiebreakers are applied in the event of ties, and extra games are never played. It would be unthinkable to play extra games in the NFL because of scheduling and injury concerns.
Esports tournaments have generally used the policy of "Avoid tiebreaking matches at all costs." In other words, only when there does not exist any reasonable tiebreaking method whatsoever are extra matches played. In the OSL group stages, which are round-robin Bo1 groups of four, extra matches do become necessary when head-to-head tiebreakers break down as in the instance of a 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 0-3 group (a common occurrence). MLG's system of tiebreakers, on the other hand, excludes the possibility of extra matches: their tiebreaking system is/was something like set record --> head-to-head --> higher seed. Many tournaments have adopted the MSL system of groups (what GOM currently uses), which eliminates the need for tiebreakers altogether.
The reason for this blog is that tournaments with more flexibility in their schedules, specifically online Dota 2 tournaments spread out over many weeks, have been discarding tiebreakers in favor of extra matches and getting flak for it.
The Defense plays extra matches for tiebreaks even when a team holds a head to head advantage. Na`Vi defeated 3DMAX during group play and lost to them in a tiebreaking match. In the Defense 3 thread, joinDOTA was criticized for playing an extra game instead of using the traditional H2H tiebreaker.
Ayesee is the caster for the D2L. When I asked him about the D2L's tiebreaking procedures, he stated that the only tiebreaker after match score was "games won" and that after that, an extra match would be played. Soon after tweeting that, someone replied, Wait, where's the head-to-head?
These criticisms of the tiebreaking rules of The Defense and D2L are misguided. Playing extra matches is strictly better than using a head-to-head tiebreaker. If we have two 5-2 teams in a played out group, and Team A has defeated Team B in group play, Team B has made up that loss by defeating at least one team that Team A lost to. Granting team A the right to advance from the group over Team B is essentially arbitrary. But, as discussed above, tiebreaks themselves are essentially arbitrary (except in the case of using game score after match score, which I wouldn't consider a real tiebreaker anyway). Using H2H is a necessary evil in some cases, but many esports watchers seem to find it preferable to playing an extra match even when that evil doesn't have to come to pass! I can only imagine that this is because the long history of using H2H and its status in e- and professional sports as the first tiebreaker has left the practice ingrained in the minds of fans as the right way to do things.
MLB apparently subscribes to my school of thought about tiebreakers. Extra matches are not played to determine playoff seeding in baseball—if two teams are tied atop their division, but both will make the playoffs in any event, tiebreaking rules are used and no extra matches are played. However, the situation changes when the stakes are raised. If teams are tied and one of them faces elimination from the playoffs, MLB rules prescribe the fairest way to break a tie: an extra match.
Playoffs between tied competitors straight up answer the question that arbitrary tiebreak procedures attempt to answer: who between these set of competitors is better.
Honestly I like the playing an extra match over H2H especially in things like DotA. There's a lot of tournaments that are spread out over weeks/months and just because Team A beat Team B at one point maybe as long as 2ish months prior that doesn't reflect the current states of the teams. One team may have been on a hot tear and has cooled off since or maybe one was in a "slump" and has since broken out of it. Also look at Starladder? lately there has been a lot of very odd non-"meta" picks teams experiment, teams play poorly, etc. there's a million reasons why the extra game is better in my eyes. And my counter argument for H2H would be "If you beat them once already you should be able to beat them again no problem"
One reason why I'm not completely fond (but not against either, I can see their practical use and I agree with the reasoning for having then) of tie-breaking matches first is that when you have 3+-way ties, you can THEORETICALLY come into a situation where you really have to play a ridiculous amount of matches before a winner is decided.
On February 21 2013 05:46 WindWolf wrote: One reason why I'm not completely fond (but not against either, I can see their practical use and I agree with the reasoning for having then) of tie-breaking matches first is that when you have 3+-way ties, you can THEORETICALLY come into a situation where you really have to play a ridiculous amount of matches before a winner is decided.
We very nearly got a whole GOM U&D group replayed.
the thing that gets me about head to head scores being used is that you can make an argument that the team that won the head to head should be eliminated. because if both these teams are top, that means the head to head winner, must of lost to a really bad team, the head to head loser only lost to the other good team. so assuming you accept a bit of variance in results of close skilled teams, you can easily argue the head to head loser is the better team.
cant disagree about extra matches at all. within the time constraints a tourneys goal is to find the best team, more matches reduce variance and is therefore the definition of the best way to sort tie breaks.
What the fuck MLG with "higher seed" ?! You actually mean in case of a tie, where the lower seeded player won as many matches as the higher ranked one, the higher seed goes through ? If anything, it should be the opposite to reward a breakthrough !! I never knew that ??!
Head to head has never been something I experienced in sports. in the UK most things are done on points, you get 3 points of a win and 1 for a draw. If you have the same points then in sports like football or hockey, goal difference is used to tie break (goal diff is goals scored minus goals against, in case you are not familiar) and thats usually all that is needed.
I had never come across a format in which head to head scores counted until i started watching american sports. So i guess the fact that game difference (wins minus losses) or how many games you have won total deciding a tiebreaker in dota makes more sense to me since its a bit like goal difference.
On February 21 2013 08:28 Nouar wrote: What the fuck MLG with "higher seed" ?! You actually mean in case of a tie, where the lower seeded player won as many matches as the higher ranked one, the higher seed goes through ? If anything, it should be the opposite to reward a breakthrough !! I never knew that ??!
these are the same people who came up with extended series, how can you be so surprised they would do something so moronic? ;p
basically at MLG with extended series, you are giving an advantage to someone they have already lost. under their old system if you beat someone round 1 winners and then met them in losers final, you would start off up at least 1 game. so both players have lost a series, one fought through the entire lower bracket to get to the final and the team that put them there lost somewhere along the way also but now have an advantage. So why not give an advantage to someone tied by using their seeds? Sounds right up MLG's street.
MLG had to completely re-work their brackets and make an even more complex system just so they can avoid their own rules, because extended series is so unpopular with sc2 fans. instead of removing it, they simply make up some extremely long winded way to make sure IT NEVER HAPPENS.
Yes, these are the people who run MLG. Why would anything they do actually make sense? It wouldn't, because thats just not MLG.
On February 21 2013 09:14 emythrel wrote: Head to head has never been something I experienced in sports. in the UK most things are done on points, you get 3 points of a win and 1 for a draw. If you have the same points then in sports like football or hockey, goal difference is used to tie break (goal diff is goals scored minus goals against, in case you are not familiar) and thats usually all that is needed.
I had never come across a format in which head to head scores counted until i started watching american sports. So i guess the fact that game difference (wins minus losses) or how many games you have won total deciding a tiebreaker in dota makes more sense to me since its a bit like goal difference.
You can really only compare proleague to the national leagues of soccer. Every other SC tournament are much better compared to an actual tournament. Prior to the 2010 WC, soccer used head-to-head tiebreakers before group tiebreakers and UEFA still uses head-to-head first.
This is why the MSL duel system is so much better than round robin groups. As a spectator I really love extra matches though. But I can always stop watching when things get out of hand, it is much tougher for players.
On February 21 2013 03:08 itsjustatank wrote: Playoffs between tied competitors straight up answer the question that arbitrary tiebreak procedures attempt to answer: who between these set of competitors is better.
Perfeclty worded in terms of fairness. I also have to add: More games = more fun (in terms of enjoyment as a viewer)
Without tiebreaker games, we wouldn't have gotten this masterpiece. But extra games is usually a terrible idea. After running a few small tournaments, both Starcraft and not, it completely kills the schedule of a tournament and makes it run way later than it should.
Good read, shame that there are so few replies despite this being such a thorough article/blog entry.
It definitely is hard to say, but the one thing I can say for sure is that I highly dislike that MLG "higher-seed-goes-through" rule. That's just disappointing to me; they can do better than that. Shame that we cannot realistically do extra games for those live "offline" tournaments for lack of time.
Good read. I hate H2H as a tiebreaker but I guess it's a necessary evil if there are time constraints. However a format that produces less ties (U&D format sucks) would also go a long way to fixing the issue. In extended tournaments like the GSL I also wouldn't mind having an extra day set aside for resolving tiebreak matches. It would produce quality extra content, add tension/hope for fanboys and the stronger player/team would be more likely to advance.
EPT
