EPTGSL is a great example of this - its gone through MANY changes and yet because when the make major changes they keep them for multiple seasons (normally) and thus we don't have to add eight different *'s onto every pro's stat sheet.
What do you think about the return of Extended Series at M…
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
|
OrD_SC2
United States247 Posts
GSL is a great example of this - its gone through MANY changes and yet because when the make major changes they keep them for multiple seasons (normally) and thus we don't have to add eight different *'s onto every pro's stat sheet. | ||
|
CycoDude
United States326 Posts
so is that the issue, or is the issue that double-elimination is not as good as some other method? | ||
|
Klyberess
Sweden345 Posts
On July 05 2013 11:59 CycoDude wrote: i don't know why people cry about this. if you beat someone in a best of three, and meet that same person again, they have to beat you in two best of threes, because you haven't fallen into the losers bracket yet. it's DOUBLE ELIMINATION. they've already lost once, you've lost ZERO times. it's not hard to understand. so is that the issue, or is the issue that double-elimination is not as good as some other method? If you're in the winner's bracket, you DON'T play against someone in the loser's bracket. Why do you complain that WE don't understand the system, when you clearly have no idea how it works yourself? Ugh... Apparently it IS hard to understand. | ||
|
Noobity
United States871 Posts
However, this does kind of cheat a player who has not lost a set when they face a player that has. Maybe if each MLG just starts to be 2 side by side tournaments, where the winner of 1 will play the winner of the other, creating a true best of whatever final, with extended series being used in each individual bracket but not the final? Or maybe 4 individual mini tournaments where the winner of the winners bracket and the winner of the losers bracket go to the round of 8 and then it's single elim from there? Or just make getting to the finals as the winner's bracket winner have it's own bonus prize money? I actually like that last idea. On July 05 2013 16:19 Klyberess wrote: If you're in the winner's bracket, you DON'T play against someone in the loser's bracket. Why do you complain that WE don't understand the system, when you clearly have no idea how it works yourself? Ugh... Apparently it IS hard to understand. Happens in the finals kinda often. If huk beats demuslim in the semis of the winners bracket, and then demuslim beats incontrol in the losers bracket finals, then it's huk vs demuslim in the finals where huk's already beaten demuslim once. I think that's the kinda thing he's getting at. | ||
|
polysciguy
United States488 Posts
On June 25 2013 12:20 Boucot wrote: What I don't like and I find "unfair" in this system is that it gives an advantage to a player who is at the same stage of the tournament as his opponent. Both players have lost a series. Why would a player suffer such a disadvantage because he lost to the "wrong" player ? That's why I dislike extended series. this also think about it, if the series becomes a best of 5, the player that won the previous series only has to win 1 game to move on, if it becomes a best of seven, the losing player has to win 3-4 games and is only allowed to drop a single match. when if they face any other player they only have to win 2 games. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
Also from an organisational point of view it messes up the timings by making the length of each series more variable. There is no "plus" except extra games... but you could add them in better places. | ||
|
Befree
695 Posts
I formally propose this Transitive Extended Series model for future MLGs. Fairness will prevail! Or wait... Why are we even restricting this to their little subset of 3?? Why should A's games vs B, C, D, E not also be organized in such a way to relate them to F's games vs G, H, I, J? A 2-0's BCDE and F 2-1's GHIJ. And A vs F begins at 0-0?? What the fuck?? Certainly we can relate their two paths in a fair way? Now sure you might say "but genius creator of the TES model, what if GHIJ were a bunch of American noobs and BCDE were a bunch of top Koreans? We can't compare those results as if a win vs 2-0 vs B is the same as a 2-0 vs G!" Indeed you are correct, and that's why our model will also utilize an ELO system! Using the ELO of A's and F's previous opponents we can accurately weight the significance of each of their previous wins, and using this we can come up with an initial score for their series that truly will capture the accomplishments each has made so far in the tournament. But hold on you might say. Hold on sir because there's still injustice left in this MLG tournament. For example what if A beat B in the last 10 competitive matches against each other. Surely if B were to 3-2 A it would be an anomaly, an injustice against the A and the tournament as a whole! ...Dammit, you're right! We've completely ignored history in our model. Without that, we definitely cannot optimize this tournament for fairness. Okay... Well the inclusion of ELO certainly helps to a degree in terms of taking into account the history of players in our tournament, but it definitely doesn't go far enough. Our model needs to include every match in the last year... no... 2 years... no, that's not enough! Our model must include every single competitive match each player in our tournament has every played! Once we take that into account, we can then correctly weight who deserves to win every match and maybe then we can reach the level of absolutely fair results... Oh no, but what about non-competitive matches! Does the ladder game Flash won against Supernova last night not mean anything?!! How can we ignore that! We can't.. Clearly we must work with Blizzard and collect ladder data on every player and inject that into our model as well... Ah but what about melee games off the ladder?... Yes, I suppose we'll need those too. And really since we're on the subject of custom games, what if Flash beats Supernova at 5 games of Desert Strike in a row?! Sure it's not using melee ruleset but it has similar themes to our MLG competitive matches. It should also be included in our system, even if just to a small degree.... I think we've got it now guys. We just need every single game played by every player on StarCraft. And then the tournament will be truly optimized for justice... This will really be a milestone for competitive gaming, as well as humanity as a whole. WAIT Oh my god, how was I so foolish?! Our thinking, it has been so focused on purely StarCraft and purely match results, I think we're missing the human factor in this all. What about that game of Star Battle that Flash was in on that day when he had just had lunch and was feeling a little sick from it and he lost to Supernova. I mean we're COMPLETELY ignoring the factors outside of the game there! Or what about that guy who said "you suck" to Suppy before he started that MLG match. Clearly Suppy's mind was put in a different state than his opponent by this outside factor he couldn't control. Was that win to his opponent really as valuable as a clean win would have been?? NO! If we're gonna do this right, we're gonna need to factor in every emotion they feel... Well, more than that, we need every single stimuli they have ever been exposed to to be included in our model... Only at this point can we calculate the correct initial score for beginning a series. Only then we'll we be able to weight in such a way that justice always prevails. But certainly through these calculations, we can find to within an extremely tiny error (basically negligible) who should win. So why even put them through it? Because that tiny negligible chance that they have of deserving their win deserves a chance!! That's what the MLG is about! We can't ignore any factor due to its seemingly insignificant existence. A true utopia of competitive E-sports awaits us with MLG as our guide. Oh what a beautiful world it will be. And more importantly, what a fair one. | ||
|
Terrasmith
47 Posts
| ||
|
Garoodah
United States56 Posts
| ||
|
KalWarkov
Germany4126 Posts
it rly hurts my brain that 32% vote for "approve" | ||
|
KalWarkov
Germany4126 Posts
On July 05 2013 11:59 CycoDude wrote: i don't know why people cry about this. if you beat someone in a best of three, and meet that same person again, they have to beat you in two best of threes, because you haven't fallen into the losers bracket yet. it's DOUBLE ELIMINATION. they've already lost once, you've lost ZERO times. it's not hard to understand. so is that the issue, or is the issue that double-elimination is not as good as some other method? well, then why do you only have to win 2 bo3s if you already played and lost against that specific player? you should either play 2 bo3s vs EVERYONE who lost ZERO games till that point, or just fucking play a normal bo3 since u crawled all the way up to that point from a LB, and you had to go through a lot more opponents. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
If you are a better player go out there and prove it. | ||
|
TrippSC2
United States209 Posts
I like ES in the context of two players that are meeting in a Winners bracket vs Losers bracket finals. ES is more interesting and straight-forward to explain as a format than doing the 1 BoX to force another BoX. MLG doesn't use ES well, imo. If both players are in the same Losers bracket, they deserve to go in on equal footing. Also, in the past, they've double handicapped the Losers bracket player in the above situation which leads to an unfair and confusing format. Stuff like the Loser bracket player must win a Bo9 (Bo3 + Bo5) starting down 2-0 to extend the series further to a Bo13, which is just ridiculous. Personally, I miss the pool play that used to happen at MLG. Fairness aside, I enjoyed watching that format more than an enormous bracket. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18138 Posts
| ||
| ||
