Official State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 208

On November 10 2010 18:06 SmoKim wrote:
for reference about Sen's "complain video" i think you guys are taking it too seriously

On November 10 2010 18:47 Monzterg wrote:
Yeah but the point is not to determine who's a favorite between player A and B but rather who's gonna be comming out on top of a field. So player A can be a underdog to player B, But he can be a favorite over 90% of the field while player B is only a favorite over 75% of the field so making it as fair as possible between player A and B isnt necessairly optimal either.

Also in a tournament format it should be about ceasing the moment. Its the moment that is exciting in a tournament and the Semifinals or Finals is a different moment from the round of 32 so.

I think extended series is not that good because it has the incorrect focus. If you end up playing a player twice and you're going 2-0, 1-2 and you're eliminated from the lower bracket beeing 3-2 to that player overall then you have to justify that by saying to yourself that your opponent was able to bring out a win in the more important moment THIS TIME.


Cheering for Tyler as always because he's chilling just like me

On November 10 2010 18:56 robertdinh wrote:
Incontrol tries to argue that each round is isolated, but it isn't. If you meet someone you've already played recently in the tournament, you have fresh data on them, which they also have on you, but that makes it not so isolated and 1 dimensional. A best of 7 is the best way to determine between 2 players which one is better of them in head to head. Double elimination doesn't always do that as you can go 3-2 vs someone and still get elim'd with them moving on. *snip* if they lose 2-0 in the upper and are at a severe disadvantage when they meet that player in the lower bracket, it is their fault because they lost so badly. At worst it ends as if they had played a bo7, and the best player between the two advances.

On November 10 2010 18:56 robertdinh wrote:In the end extended series isn't unfair, because every player knows the rules going in, and

On November 10 2010 19:06 dcemuser wrote:


You're making the same mistake Tyler is (and iNcontroL did too, ironically, but on the opposite end of the argument). The rounds are not isolated, correct.

You have to look at the whole tournament. If I beat you once, and then I lose to Player C, we have both lost ONCE. Then, if you beat me (in a fresh series) and our overall record is 2-3 in my favor, I have no right to complain because I lost TWICE.

If I sit there and go "herp derp, I was 2-3!!!", I could probably get pissed off, but then I'd stop and think and be like gee... maybe it is because I lost twice, once to you, and once to Player C. You never lost against another other player, so you are the better player OVERALL out of the two of us and deserve to advance.



No unfortunately you are looking at it incorrectly... if I send you to the lower bracket, and then lose to someone that went further than I do in the winner bracket, i've technically lost to a better player, and you've technically lost to a weaker player. Based on the tournament brackets. In reality you may be able to beat the player that beat me, but this is not a round robin tournament, so you have to judge the accuracy as best you can based on how well people are advancing.
This is just flat out silly.

New rule: Every player can't build Tier 1 units. Because every player knows it going it, it is fair.

On November 10 2010 19:08 robertdinh wrote:
If you know the rules going into the tourney you are accountable for your own results. If you get destroyed in a winner bracket game 2-0 and you know full well about the extended series rule, it is your own fault that you put yourself in the hole that much.

A lot of players don't want to be fully accountable for their own performance but that's simply how it is.

On November 10 2010 19:08 robertdinh wrote:
If you don't want to be in that hole, beat him, if you can't beat him in an extended series that overall puts two players at a bo7, you aren't stronger than him head to head, so why would that be unfair, and why would you deserve to advance over him?

On November 10 2010 19:15 dcemuser wrote:


Ignoring the counterargument because it is 5:12 A.M. and my last bit of thinking went into the other post, what is your solution then?

Don't play in the only open North American tournament?!

The reason we're discussing this is because MLG said they wanted a discussion on this. They wanted us to talk about the rules during the offseason so they could get various opinions.

Not to mention some people get a lucky first round advantage because of the map. You aren't the only person accountable for your own results, there is a huge element of luck, which gets much bigger when you add in extended series (because you can lose and get lucky and never face that person again, suffering no disadvantage at all).

On November 10 2010 19:15 dcemuser wrote:


Ignoring the counterargument because it is 5:12 A.M. and my last bit of thinking went into the other post, what is your solution then?

Don't play in the only open North American tournament?!

The reason we're discussing this is because MLG said they wanted a discussion on this. They wanted us to talk about the rules during the offseason so they could get various opinions.

Not to mention some people get a lucky first round advantage because of the map. You aren't the only person accountable for your own results, there is a huge element of luck, which gets much bigger when you add in extended series (because you can lose and get lucky and never face that person again, suffering no disadvantage at all).



It has nothing to do with Bo7s, it has to do with a Bo7 with him coming with the advantage from a previous match. You suffered the penalty of losing and went to the loser's bracket.

Now, due to arbitrary BS, you are playing him again with a huge disadvantage.

If you'd had better luck, you (like most other players) would have never faced the guy who knocked you down into the Loser's Bracket again.

So, randomly, based on luck, you sometimes have a huge disadvantage. How is that a good rule?

On November 10 2010 19:19 robertdinh wrote:
Yes and there is nothing wrong with discussing issues and disagreeing and sharing opinions.

If you don't like the rules you can choose not to participate, if you find the rules tolerable you can participate but then don't complain about the rules after they work out unfavorably for you. That is just not holding yourself accountable for your own performance.

If you lost cause of a map that sucks, but you knew the map pool and the parameters of the tourney before entering (or at least it is your responsibility to yourself to know them)

On November 10 2010 19:19 robertdinh wrote:
But you have forgotten that the tourney tries as best it can to determine who is the stronger player... it will not put him the WINNER of your first bo3 at a disadvantage of a double bo3 format because that could work out with him winning more games yet failing to advance. It would be just as unlucky for him if he had to do typical double elim format and ran into you, winning more games overall and still getting elim'd. It puts the original loser at a disadvantage relative to what it would in a normal double elim format, but the disadvantage he is at is due to his own inability to beat the player in the upper bracket, and it determines the most accurate result of which player is stronger, where bo7 is more accurate than 2 bo3s.

On November 10 2010 19:27 dcemuser wrote:

Judging by the State of the Game and other casts, most people disagree with the rules. Most of them participated anyway. Most of them complained about the rules afterwards even when they worked out well. EG.iNkA came back from 0-2 versus FnaticFenix to win 4-3, and afterwards on Live on 3, he basically said "This rule is fucked up."



No, it wouldn't be just as unlucky, because he lost twice.

Whether or not he lost to a better player is arbitrary. He may have lost to player in different matchup, on different maps, or under other different circumstances.

The fact he is he still lost twice, and you lost once.

There is a reason no other professional tournament in the world uses extended series - at least that I've heard of. It ruins the impartiality of double elimination and adds a huge element in favor of a 'slight' increase in accuracy.