|
On November 10 2010 19:31 robertdinh wrote:
Ok and the argument can be made that if he beats you in a bo7 overall he is a better player than you and deserves to advance over you.
And yes it is unlucky if he has beaten you more than you have beaten him, and you advance further in the tourney and elim him.
Him losing to a better player is relevant because the tourney is trying within it's format to determine the strongest players of the tourney.
Some may want to see mothership rushes or other things for entertainment, but I am pretty sure there are a lot of fans that are interested in seeing who the strongest player actually is.
MLG chose to provide the best accuracy they can with their constraints, is that at the expense of entertainment? That is subjective and can be argued many ways, does it completely eliminate the entertainment? No not at all.
How accurate should MLG be in determining who is the champion? I'd prefer more accuracy than less.
If the goal was determine the best player, they'd use Round Robin or a League Ranking.
It's not, and they're not. Nobody knows whether Jinro was actually the best player at that event.
Was he probably? Maybe. He'd have to play every player there in Bo15s in every matchup on each map, and then maybe we could determine that.
It's not worth all the hassle it has caused them to try to slightly increase the accuracy (again, this is arguable, but I'm not arguing it just for the sake of time). Most players hate it. Most fans hate it. The WINNERS hate it.
|
On November 10 2010 19:36 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 19:31 robertdinh wrote:
Ok and the argument can be made that if he beats you in a bo7 overall he is a better player than you and deserves to advance over you.
And yes it is unlucky if he has beaten you more than you have beaten him, and you advance further in the tourney and elim him.
Him losing to a better player is relevant because the tourney is trying within it's format to determine the strongest players of the tourney.
Some may want to see mothership rushes or other things for entertainment, but I am pretty sure there are a lot of fans that are interested in seeing who the strongest player actually is.
MLG chose to provide the best accuracy they can with their constraints, is that at the expense of entertainment? That is subjective and can be argued many ways, does it completely eliminate the entertainment? No not at all.
How accurate should MLG be in determining who is the champion? I'd prefer more accuracy than less. If the goal was determine the best player, they'd use Round Robin or a League Ranking. It's not, and they're not. Nobody knows whether Jinro was actually the best player at that event. Was he probably? Maybe. He'd have to play every player there in Bo15s in every matchup on each map, and then maybe we could determine that. It's not worth all the hassle it has caused them to try to slightly increase the accuracy (again, this is arguable, but I'm not arguing it just for the sake of time). Most players hate it. Most fans hate it. The WINNERS hate it.
I've already mentioned that they try to be as accurate as they can within reason. You can not hold a 128 player round robin tourney in 1 weekend.
The only hassle it is causing is for people who think MLG tournaments aren't trying their best to determine who is the best player. The extended series is specifically for that purpose.
Whether they stick with extended series or not is not set in stone obviously, but you should at least understand what they were trying to do.
Will double elim ever be 100% accurate on all placings? No... but they can still try to be as accurate as possible.
|
On November 10 2010 19:46 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 19:36 dcemuser wrote:On November 10 2010 19:31 robertdinh wrote:
Ok and the argument can be made that if he beats you in a bo7 overall he is a better player than you and deserves to advance over you.
And yes it is unlucky if he has beaten you more than you have beaten him, and you advance further in the tourney and elim him.
Him losing to a better player is relevant because the tourney is trying within it's format to determine the strongest players of the tourney.
Some may want to see mothership rushes or other things for entertainment, but I am pretty sure there are a lot of fans that are interested in seeing who the strongest player actually is.
MLG chose to provide the best accuracy they can with their constraints, is that at the expense of entertainment? That is subjective and can be argued many ways, does it completely eliminate the entertainment? No not at all.
How accurate should MLG be in determining who is the champion? I'd prefer more accuracy than less. If the goal was determine the best player, they'd use Round Robin or a League Ranking. It's not, and they're not. Nobody knows whether Jinro was actually the best player at that event. Was he probably? Maybe. He'd have to play every player there in Bo15s in every matchup on each map, and then maybe we could determine that. It's not worth all the hassle it has caused them to try to slightly increase the accuracy (again, this is arguable, but I'm not arguing it just for the sake of time). Most players hate it. Most fans hate it. The WINNERS hate it. I've already mentioned that they try to be as accurate as they can within reason. You can not hold a 128 player round robin tourney in 1 weekend. The only hassle it is causing is for people who think MLG tournaments aren't trying their best to determine who is the best player. The extended series is specifically for that purpose. Whether they stick with extended series or not is not set in stone obviously, but you should at least understand what they were trying to do. Will double elim ever be 100% accurate on all placings? No... but they can still try to be as accurate as possible.
I understand what they were trying to do, and why they were trying to do it (and yes, part of it was just because they did it in Halo).
If you could win a philosophical argument and find that the extended series is more fair (just for the sake of argument), you could never explain that to the common spectator. Most people are going to go "Wait, why aren't they all on equal footing?" "That's bullshit."
I think it is for the best that the rule be changed.
|
On November 10 2010 19:54 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 19:46 robertdinh wrote:On November 10 2010 19:36 dcemuser wrote:On November 10 2010 19:31 robertdinh wrote:
Ok and the argument can be made that if he beats you in a bo7 overall he is a better player than you and deserves to advance over you.
And yes it is unlucky if he has beaten you more than you have beaten him, and you advance further in the tourney and elim him.
Him losing to a better player is relevant because the tourney is trying within it's format to determine the strongest players of the tourney.
Some may want to see mothership rushes or other things for entertainment, but I am pretty sure there are a lot of fans that are interested in seeing who the strongest player actually is.
MLG chose to provide the best accuracy they can with their constraints, is that at the expense of entertainment? That is subjective and can be argued many ways, does it completely eliminate the entertainment? No not at all.
How accurate should MLG be in determining who is the champion? I'd prefer more accuracy than less. If the goal was determine the best player, they'd use Round Robin or a League Ranking. It's not, and they're not. Nobody knows whether Jinro was actually the best player at that event. Was he probably? Maybe. He'd have to play every player there in Bo15s in every matchup on each map, and then maybe we could determine that. It's not worth all the hassle it has caused them to try to slightly increase the accuracy (again, this is arguable, but I'm not arguing it just for the sake of time). Most players hate it. Most fans hate it. The WINNERS hate it. I've already mentioned that they try to be as accurate as they can within reason. You can not hold a 128 player round robin tourney in 1 weekend. The only hassle it is causing is for people who think MLG tournaments aren't trying their best to determine who is the best player. The extended series is specifically for that purpose. Whether they stick with extended series or not is not set in stone obviously, but you should at least understand what they were trying to do. Will double elim ever be 100% accurate on all placings? No... but they can still try to be as accurate as possible. I understand what they were trying to do, and why they were trying to do it (and yes, part of it was just because they did it in Halo). If you could win a philosophical argument and find that the extended series is more fair (just for the sake of argument), you could never explain that to the common spectator. Most people are going to go "Wait, why aren't they all on equal footing?" "That's bullshit." I think it is for the best that the rule be changed.
Ok but if the extended series is unfair (even though a bo7 is in reality more accurate than 2 bo3s) then why don't people have gripes with seeding? Isn't that also unfair since it uses data from a previous tournament to augment a present tournament? That argument could be made, but the reality of it is that it helps to make sure that proven players don't knock each other around in early rounds. Since a player getting unlucky and playing 2 top players asap might get eliminated much earlier than someone who got lucky and played bad players but isn't good.
It just caters to the notion that the tournament is trying to accurately determine the best players.
You can't do everything just to cater to spectators, you do some, but you also want the tournament to be legitimate.
If they don't understand the extended series rule MLG can explain it's reasoning and logic behind it on their site.... If the fans refuse to go take the time to understand it and have a problem with it, whose fault is that?
|
Isn't the point of double elimination to increase the likelihood of the good players advancing far into the tournament? If the tournament structure should be unbiased with regards to player expectations then you wouldn't have double elimination, or even seedings for that matter.
|
On November 10 2010 20:05 hugman wrote:
Isn't the point of double elimination to increase the likelihood of the good players advancing far into the tournament? If the tournament structure should be unbiased with regards to player expectations then you wouldn't have double elimination, or even seedings for that matter.
Yep, and extended series travels along the same mentality and takes it one step further in accurately determining which player is strongest between 2 that might meet multiple times.
|
On November 10 2010 20:09 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2010 20:05 hugman wrote:
Isn't the point of double elimination to increase the likelihood of the good players advancing far into the tournament? If the tournament structure should be unbiased with regards to player expectations then you wouldn't have double elimination, or even seedings for that matter. Yep, and extended series travels along the same mentality and takes it one step further in accurately determining which player is strongest between 2 that might meet multiple times.
if determining who the better player is then everyone should be playing a best of 7 or best of 15.
|
On November 10 2010 20:00 robertdinh wrote:
You can't do everything just to cater to spectators, you do some, but you also want the tournament to be legitimate.
The tournament will be perfectly legitimate without the extended series.
Basically every other tournament in the history of double elimination hasn't used it - unless you're calling the College Basketball championships illegitimate. 
|
On November 10 2010 20:00 robertdinh wrote:
If they don't understand the extended series rule MLG can explain it's reasoning and logic behind it on their site.... If the fans refuse to go take the time to understand it and have a problem with it, whose fault is that?
On November 10 2010 20:09 robertdinh wrote:
Yep, and extended series travels along the same mentality and takes it one step further in accurately determining which player is strongest between 2 that might meet multiple times.
I don't mean to pick at your viewpoint but I have to say I totally disagree with you here.
If fans don't like the extended series rule then depending on the percentile of the audience disliking it (which currently seems to be the majority) it very much is MLG's problem.
If fans don't like a rule and don't want to watch it, then that can impact on viewer counts, which of course lowers sponsor views and reduces the overall income for MLG. It's in MLG's interest to create a popular product, since they are a business at the end of the day. If removing the extended series rule makes the majority of the audience happy then they should do it, no questions asked.
I personally dislike the rule, because it makes for boring games when extended series are casted.
I also disagree that it shows who the best player is, because it arbitrarily gives one player a considerable advantage over the opponent. Playing two series at different times of the day is not comparable to a straight up bo7 in my opinion, as there are extra factors weighted in such as fatigue, hunger etc depending on the time between these series. This was evident at DC where Idra just rolled Select after Select had played for considerably longer in total. Giving a player a 2-1 or 2-0 lead in a bo7 equivalent in those circumstances seems to be kicking a guy when he's down to me.
I'm really looking forward to listening to this week's cast now though, since it's spawned so much debate.
|
Incontrol, since I know that you are F5'ing this thread all day long, tell your girlfriend that she did an awesome job on the MLG Dallas interviews! :D
|
I really enjoyed this weak's SotG. You really brought up the most current stuff and did it really well! Would've liked a bit more analisis about GSL but other than that, awesome. Thumbs up!
|
On November 10 2010 20:31 LittleeD wrote:
I really enjoyed this weak's SotG. You really brought up the most current stuff and did it really well! Would've liked a bit more analisis about GSL but other than that, awesome. Thumbs up!
gsl has been on break since their last episode.. ?
Anyway, looking forward to listening to it 2day
|
keep flipin the coin guys. Great show
|
I just had to step outside my office now when inControl started talking about mile long penises since I couldn't stop myself laughing :D
|
Fairness shouldn't even be an issue.
This is a spectator sport. Extended series, at least in final matches, are completely dumb. 3 days of buildup, and then it's two games, one of them likely a one base all-in, and you're done.
We can only pray that the Bnet craps out every time so there's a random 90 minute horse and pony show by Day[J]Wheat in between those two matches.
|
So awesome. Its worth getting up extra early do make sure its on the ipod before work.
|
I really agree with Tyler here. I don't understand Incontrol and idra's reasoning at all.
Its frustrating listening to them say tournaments don't and should not decide who is the better player. WTF seriously? So no sport has ever decided who is the best player? they are trying to isolate starcraft into its own universe
|
On November 10 2010 23:03 maliceee wrote:
I really agree with Tyler here. I don't understand Incontrol and idra's reasoning at all.
Beating someone 3-2 doesn't mean you are a better overall player, because it could just mean you are better vs that race, I think thats what IdrA meant.
Like FruitDealer, he had like 5 terran opponents to the finals of GSL1, and when he fought Inca, he 6pooled/baneling busted. But with no extended series, someone like Tester had no chance to come back and try fighting a zerg instead of a terran, ect.
|
Fantastic podcast guys, really love it, really enjoy it, keep doing what your doing.
Only thing i have to say is that iNcontrol, you've gotta stop taunting me with the "You should just come up and say hey at these events, because i love to meet people" I wish i could meet any of you guys, it would be fantastic, but living in Australia makes it a little bit tricky to just rock up and say hey. Maybe you should all get together and come have an epic esports event in Australia... We'd appreciate it! 
Anyway, keep up the good work, your podcast is awesome and ill happily listen to iNcontrols rants every week, because they are hilarious. Thanks for the time and effort you put into your cast!
|
8751 Posts
Haha I knew there'd be a huge debate here about extended series when I got up in the morning! Unfortunately I'm pretty damn happy that I'm not obligated to write well articulated arguments anymore so I'm just gonna leave it alone now. I will quickly sum up my basic support of extended series: Double elimination brackets fix a flaw with single elimination brackets but introduce another flaw. Having extended series addresses that new flaw.
Here is what I wrote in another thread already:
On November 10 2010 13:10 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
I think you first need to resist the urge to think too much about how double elimination tournaments are run but instead think about why double elimination is favored over single elimination. It's a format for playing more games so that results reflect performance more accurately.
There are two ways for results to kind of get messed up in a tournament.
The first way is you get unlucky with the people you have to play against. If you are scheduled to play the best player in the tournament the first round, and you are the second best player in the tournament, and he eliminates you, then the results will show you placed 65th-128th, and that's really not very accurate. Double elimination fixes that. With double elim, he knocks you out, you beat everyone you play against after that and win the losers bracket, while he beats everyone he plays and he wins the winners bracket, and you place 2nd. It's not a perfect solution, since you can still get unlucky if you are 3rd best or worse, but it certainly helps.
But what happens when you lose to a guy and then end up meeting him in the losers bracket in a double elimination tournament? He's already proven himself to be better than you. It's a "dividing by zero" kind of moment because the purpose of the losers bracket kind of disappears and your reason for still being in the tournament is kind of gone. So, extended series! The second way that tournament results can be inaccurate is when the series are just too short. If you win 55% of your games against someone, he still has a pretty damn good chance to win a bo3, but the longer the series, the lower that chance. You played him in a bo3 but maybe your loss was a fluke so let's extend the series and see if you beat this guy in a bo7.
That's one way extended series make sense. The other way is... he beats you 2-0 in the winners bracket, you beat him 2-1 in the losers bracket, and now you're 2-3 against the guy, but you're determined to be the better player because... why? The arbitrary order of the games? That doesn't make any sense. Your only explanation for why that does make sense is because it's a strict following of the double elimination format which is the solution for a different problem. Extended series fixes one (or two?) of the flaws of a straight double elimination tournament.
So basically, if you lost to a guy and you're in the losers bracket, this is where you're at: You have a chance to show how good you are against everyone else in the tournament. You recognize that you've already been bested by that one guy. If it happens that the brackets set it up so you play that guy again, you have a chance to show that you're actually better than that guy. Tying that guy 3-3 or 2-2 (1-2, 2-1 or 0-2, 2-0), or getting super lucky with game order and actually going 2-3 against him (0-2, 2-1), is NOT showing you're better than that guy.
And here is what I wrote in the MLG feedback thread
On November 09 2010 11:55 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
About extended series... I've given this so much thought and talked to a lot of people about it. I think playing with extended series and playing without them are equally valid options. If most of the SC2 fans do not like extended series then my feeling is that we shouldn't have them. Every time an extended series happens, fans are going to groan and be upset about it.
If Lee and/or other MLG decision-makers are adamant about extended series being superior to not having them, we can run through the arguments and maybe I can show that they're definitely not superior, though probably not inferior either. Then it's just a question of choosing between pleasing the fans or respecting the existing rules.
I'm looking forward to the Lee episode =]
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
