|
|
On March 11 2012 07:39 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:13 .syL wrote: The only important thing is consistency insofar as that at no point in the tournament should a team benefit from intentionally losing a game. I invite you to tell me how a tournament where a player can win without playing better than everyone else overall is better than a tournament where the player must overall outplay all the other players in order to win.
I didn't say that. There are up- and downsides to any tournament system. Some are better at deciding the overall best player, some are worse. Some take a lot of games to play, some only a few. Some are appealing to spectators, some can be boring. The point is that you're always trying to balance these three aspects (quality of result/time/spectator appeal), and some formats will be better at achieving a good ration than others. However, those are "soft" factors that are up for debate. What I refered to were hard factors, that would make a tourney logically inconsistent in itself. And that point is reached when it's beneficial for a team to lose. That's not the case here, so were're talking about soft factors.
I get why people think that you need a two boX finals, but the matter of the fact is you don't. Tournaments have used variants of double-elimination that play out only one final match for a long time. Personally, I'm partial to a format that plays out a single bo7 but gives the winner bracket winner a one game lead. It appeases the crowd while keeping a (from my vantage point more exciting) single championship match.
|
This was a lot of fun to watch! I hope to see such a tournament again sometime. Would be cool to see some Korean pro teams play 4v4 Random monobattles :-)
|
Come on guys.
I didnt like the way that WB winner didnt have an advantage, and I am an EG fan, but we cant let that tarnish what otherwise was a very nice and entertaining event. It's this kind of unique events what keep the community fresh 
|
On March 11 2012 07:49 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:41 kubiks wrote:
Why the hell people are critisizing the double elim as it were done ?
All teams are equal in the beggining and there is NO incentive to loose any game.
That's enough to say it's fair. The winner bracket winner have the "disadavatage" that they are only allowed to loose one serie (but well they have it when they already have won everything), but this serie is a Bo5.
The reason of double elim format is that a player (here a team) play at least 2 short series before going down, and it is respected.
I really prefer TB version, because that leads to a real grandfinal (the same way you have in a single elimination tournament), instead of half-assed finals you get in double elimination tournament (MLG finals are not particulary great, most of the time it's the end of looser bracket tthat is really interesting).
As far as "fairness" goes, I don't give a **** and as a spectator you shouldn't wow, we shouldn't care about fairness of a tournament? Well damn, lets just start using map hacks too!
Why would you care about fairness in a tournament that is all built around not being fair. Random monobattles is hardly a fair game mode. As far as fairness goes TB might as well have had a triple elimination format with each round being boX where X is decided by a 13 sided dice. Any matches that ended in a tie would be decided by cointoss.
This tournament wasn't made to be fair, it was made to be fun. And I'm sure it was
|
On March 11 2012 07:44 Roxor9999 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:38 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:30 Roxor9999 wrote:On March 11 2012 07:29 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:26 Roxor9999 wrote:On March 11 2012 07:23 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:18 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 07:13 Talin wrote:On March 11 2012 07:07 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 06:59 Vaelone wrote:
I enjoyed the tournament, was something new and different and I feel sorry over the people bitching about the format considering it wasn't supposed to be a serious tournament at all and rematch didn't even cross my mind even though I'm aware of how double elimination usually works.
Anyway from wikipedia:
[quote]
But keep on whining EG fans, it would have been the same system even if EG came from lower bracket. At least they had the advantage of playing one match less unless if I lost count somewhere. So because some tournaments are use a stupid set up, it makes it not stupid? No, thats not how it works. Liquid fans would be upset if they were in EG's situation too. It's stupid to call tournament format stupid. You can dislike it, that's your choice. There are obviously arguments that go both ways in favor of both options, otherwise this discussion wouldn't happen every single time there's a double-elim tournament LR thread. I get it, it's a (much) less popular option, just like PL format is now a lot less popular than WL for team leagues. But it's all about preference (of the audience and organizers). Besides, I'm not even sure if it was intended to be like this by design or it was agreed upon due to time constraints in this case. How is it stupid to call the format stupid? It is. The whole point of double elimination is to give each team a second chance. In this format, every team BUT EG got a second chance. How is that not stupid? You make it sound as if EG was singled out, when in this tournament format the only thing that happens is reducing the advantage you get from winning the upper bracket. If that were unfair, it would be beneficial to intentionally lose a game (to get that second chance). Of course, it's not. The advantage from winning the winners final isn't reduced, it is totally nonexistent. There is no disadvantage to losing a game in this format. Which, in my opinion, isn't fair. ??? Of course there is. Two teams meet in the winner bracket finals. The winner goes directly to the grand finals, the loser has to play another game to qualify, which he can potentially lose. As was demonstrated in THIS VERY TOURNAMENT, when quantic lost to EG and then dropped out of the tourney vs liquid. And the earlier you drop down to the lower bracket, the more games you have to play (and win) to reach the finals. You don't have to win more games you have to win the same amount of games and you have more games to do so which makes it easier. You don't understand how a bracket tournament works, so I'll stop arguing at this point. I think I will stop too since i can't convince you that you're wrong and saying that someone is stupid is not a valid argument btw.
I didn't say you're stupid, I said you didn't understand how a bracket tournament works, and from you wrote that's the only deduction I can make.
I'll leave you with a final thought. If this was unfair to EG, they could have chosen to intentionally lose the winner bracket final. Do you think that would have been the right course of action?
|
On March 11 2012 07:54 .syL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:44 Roxor9999 wrote:On March 11 2012 07:38 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:30 Roxor9999 wrote:On March 11 2012 07:29 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:26 Roxor9999 wrote:On March 11 2012 07:23 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:18 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 07:13 Talin wrote:On March 11 2012 07:07 jmbthirteen wrote:
[quote]
So because some tournaments are use a stupid set up, it makes it not stupid? No, thats not how it works.
Liquid fans would be upset if they were in EG's situation too. It's stupid to call tournament format stupid. You can dislike it, that's your choice. There are obviously arguments that go both ways in favor of both options, otherwise this discussion wouldn't happen every single time there's a double-elim tournament LR thread. I get it, it's a (much) less popular option, just like PL format is now a lot less popular than WL for team leagues. But it's all about preference (of the audience and organizers). Besides, I'm not even sure if it was intended to be like this by design or it was agreed upon due to time constraints in this case. How is it stupid to call the format stupid? It is. The whole point of double elimination is to give each team a second chance. In this format, every team BUT EG got a second chance. How is that not stupid? You make it sound as if EG was singled out, when in this tournament format the only thing that happens is reducing the advantage you get from winning the upper bracket. If that were unfair, it would be beneficial to intentionally lose a game (to get that second chance). Of course, it's not. The advantage from winning the winners final isn't reduced, it is totally nonexistent. There is no disadvantage to losing a game in this format. Which, in my opinion, isn't fair. ??? Of course there is. Two teams meet in the winner bracket finals. The winner goes directly to the grand finals, the loser has to play another game to qualify, which he can potentially lose. As was demonstrated in THIS VERY TOURNAMENT, when quantic lost to EG and then dropped out of the tourney vs liquid. And the earlier you drop down to the lower bracket, the more games you have to play (and win) to reach the finals. You don't have to win more games you have to win the same amount of games and you have more games to do so which makes it easier. You don't understand how a bracket tournament works, so I'll stop arguing at this point. I think I will stop too since i can't convince you that you're wrong and saying that someone is stupid is not a valid argument btw. I didn't say your stupid, I said you didn't understand how a bracket tournament works, and from you wrote that's the only deduction I can make. I'll leave you with a final thought. If this was unfair to EG, they could have chosen to intentionally lose the winner bracket final. Do you think that would have been the right course of action?
A format is bad when it's better to intentionally loose. This format isn't bad. It's just not good since it doesn't reward the team that played the best.
|
Had to go to work in the middle...CANT BELIEVE TL WON!!!!
Bumblebee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
On March 11 2012 07:50 .syL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:39 Shantastic wrote:On March 11 2012 07:13 .syL wrote: The only important thing is consistency insofar as that at no point in the tournament should a team benefit from intentionally losing a game. I invite you to tell me how a tournament where a player can win without playing better than everyone else overall is better than a tournament where the player must overall outplay all the other players in order to win. I didn't say that. There are up- and downsides to any tournament system. Some are better at deciding the overall best player, some are worse. Some take a lot of games to play, some only a few. Some are appealing to spectators, some can be boring. The point is that you're always trying to balance these three aspects (quality of result/time/spectator appeal), and some formats will be better at achieving a good ration than others. However, those are "soft" factors that are up for debate. What I refered to were hard factors, that would make a tourney logically inconsistent in itself. And that point is reached when it's beneficial for a team to lose. That's not the case here, so were're talking about soft factors. I get why people think that you need a two boX finals, but the matter of the fact is you don't. Tournaments have used variants of double-elimination that play out only one final match for a long time. Personally, I'm partial to a format that plays out a single bo7 but gives the winner bracket winner a one game lead. It appeases the crowd while keeping a (from my vantage point more exciting) single championship match.
The fact of the matter is that if your tournament doesn't always favor the best player to win, it is an unfairly designed tournament, and players will choose not to compete. That's why I say it's a stupid format; it just makes it less fair for nothing, allowing a lower-achieving team to win without a thorough comeback. Just keep it fair, and make it a two-series double-elim; you lose nothing, and you'll keep your players' loyalties. Or just make it a single-elimination bracket like March Madness.
1-game advantage is better, but it still allows the possibility for the two teams to have achieved equally in the tourney, and still have the lower bracket player win.
|
Are we really bringing in tourney rules to whats supposed to be a fun, casual, and entertaining event? Random team monobattles aren't supposed to be fair..
|
On March 11 2012 07:57 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:50 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:39 Shantastic wrote:On March 11 2012 07:13 .syL wrote: The only important thing is consistency insofar as that at no point in the tournament should a team benefit from intentionally losing a game. I invite you to tell me how a tournament where a player can win without playing better than everyone else overall is better than a tournament where the player must overall outplay all the other players in order to win. I didn't say that. There are up- and downsides to any tournament system. Some are better at deciding the overall best player, some are worse. Some take a lot of games to play, some only a few. Some are appealing to spectators, some can be boring. The point is that you're always trying to balance these three aspects (quality of result/time/spectator appeal), and some formats will be better at achieving a good ration than others. However, those are "soft" factors that are up for debate. What I refered to were hard factors, that would make a tourney logically inconsistent in itself. And that point is reached when it's beneficial for a team to lose. That's not the case here, so were're talking about soft factors. I get why people think that you need a two boX finals, but the matter of the fact is you don't. Tournaments have used variants of double-elimination that play out only one final match for a long time. Personally, I'm partial to a format that plays out a single bo7 but gives the winner bracket winner a one game lead. It appeases the crowd while keeping a (from my vantage point more exciting) single championship match. The fact of the matter is that if your tournament doesn't always favor the best player to win, it is an unfairly designed tournament, and players will choose not to compete. That's why I say it's a stupid format; it just makes it less fair for nothing, allowing a lower-achieving team to win without a thorough comeback. Just keep it fair, and make it a two-series double-elim; you lose nothing, and you'll keep your players' loyalties. Or just make it a single-elimination bracket like March Madness. 1-game advantage is better, but it still allows the possibility for the two teams to have achieved equally in the tourney, and still have the lower bracket player win.
You honestly think these teams did this just for the money? They ALL had fun....whether u think so or not...money was just a side prize tbh....ive seen members of EG/Liquid doing these games on their stream for fun...so pls just enjoy the FREE tournament....k thx
|
I never said that. I'm sure they played for fun, and that's why they agreed to the rules. I just got caught up in an argument over the rules themselves.
On March 11 2012 08:02 Whatson wrote:
Are we really bringing in tourney rules to whats supposed to be a fun, casual, and entertaining event? Random team monobattles aren't supposed to be fair..
Those two sentences are completely unrelated. We're discussing the fairness of the tourney rules, not the fairness of random team monobattles.
But you have a good point, and I feel like I've made mine, so no need to derail the thread from what really was a great tournament overall. I happily renounce my claim to the last word 
|
Great event. I was looking forward to this for weeks and never would have dreamt that so many people (I think the peak was at 26k or 27k viewers) would tune in. This event was about fun and charity with a little incentive by TB to make things more interesting for the pros. It was his idea, his money and his tournament, so it is beyond me how and why people are turning this into a mudslinging.
I was particularly disappointed by Huk's display of manners. BM to a certain degree is fine and was obviously encouraged, but the jab at TLO was very, very low. I think it talks volumes that TLO, who is usually a very cheerful person, didn't respond to that. I have no comment for Huk's actions after the match had ended. As one of the best sponsored SC2 players, I expect a more mature attitude from him towards a bloody _charity_ event. Perhaps he should play more cups à la Playhem Daily if $250 matter so much to him.
Despite this rather ugly turn of event, I hope we haven't seen the last of monobattles yet. I enjoyed it profoundly and hope for a remake.
|
On March 11 2012 07:43 Porcelina wrote:
Had this running in the background for most of the afternoon, and greatly enjoyed the commentary. Was great hearing Chill again and it sounded like a splendid event.
Sorry to hear about the drama at the end. I hope that the people that matter will continue to do what they are doing, thank you so much for providing the entertainment. And thank you for contributing to a fantastic charity.
As far as the rest, it just feels good to not interact with this community. I will tune in and enjoy the stuff that is being presented to me, I love the game, I love watching players and this certainly was a different look into the scene. Frankly, it is nice to watch it without having any interaction with the people who decided that this was the time and place to moan and complain; it feels good to not have to listen to the ones that never want to enjoy the good and thank the providers for giving.
So true. SC2 (and life in general for that matter) is a lot more enjoyable if you don't read forums. Everyone seems to want to argue and be right on the internet. It's pretty shit. Stark contrast to this here fine event.
|
Are there vods of this up yet?
|
Sorry if I missed this somewhere - I didn't catch the first couple matches, will there be VODs?
EDIT: ninja'd, apparently. Great success!
|
|
|
The amount of people taking this tournament even partly serious is deeply depressing.
|
The tournament format should've been fair. Everyone but EG got an extra "life." I know monobattles isn't a fair game but the actually format of the tournament should be fair. And I know the tournament is just for fun but it still should be fair.
Did you notice why there was very little talking in game for the last couple games of the tournament? (compared to all the other games in the tournament). The tournament was about to end and both teams wanted to win b/c of the rivalry between Liquid and EG. It doesn't matter if it's a for fun tournament, the rivalry is important to them, even if the match means very little. If there was any game between Liquid and EG that was streamed to the public, people care b/c it's freaking EG vs Liquid! That's why it should be a fair match.
|
HuK and Liquid` are close friends. His BM was meant to be funny, and it was meant to entertain, which it did. I'm sure TLO took it as lightly as HuK meant it. His comment after the tourney though was quite a flame. But even though he should not have done it, having pulled 2 all-nighters during the last week for midterms, I can empathize with him being a cranky bear >=(
|
Bhah! This was designed to be an unfair tournament and was still one of the best things I saw in a while. Well done by all the organizers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
Pro Random Monobattles Tournament
