EPTI personally think that head-to-head score should be king, so that's why I support extended series, but in this weird ass system where head-to-head score is not always king, there is at least some sense to how it's run, and it's popular and common and everyone understands it, so let's just do that.
Official State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 210
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NonY
8748 Posts
I personally think that head-to-head score should be king, so that's why I support extended series, but in this weird ass system where head-to-head score is not always king, there is at least some sense to how it's run, and it's popular and common and everyone understands it, so let's just do that. | ||
|
maliceee
United States634 Posts
On November 10 2010 23:12 Fa1nT wrote: 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. I understand what he's saying that they both fucked up at some point in the tourney so why should he advance over him. It is a problem with having three races, but honestly that should mean fuck-all. It is a 1v1 game, you should win head to head and not get into this college football mentality of: this team beat this team that lost to this team, so that means this team is better. It is a 1v1 game, so beat your opponent. It doesn't mean you are the best overall player, but it is the best indicator. What else can you do but win? The tournaments should try to produce the best player at that tournament, that should be the goal. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
It's still a tournament however, what matters isn't that you're somehow the superior player, it's that when it matters you are able to win. Doing well in tournaments will be devalued if people endlessly start to doubt if the results are any meaningful indication of the actual skill too, at one point you have to accept that if, say, Jinro wins then that might not mean he was better than Idra in general, or even in that tournament, but that it's still an incredible achievement. And the only way to allow this is to accept that winning when it matters is meaningful. | ||
|
Daray
6006 Posts
I mean what if on a regular NHL season 2 teams played each other 4 times. Team A beats team B 4-1 in the first match so game 2 should start 4-1 for team A, right? This is where it gets fooked. It's no fun for the viewers, maybe team B were hungover and they didn't play their best or team A could've used weird special tactics! and now team B knows what to do to counter it (yeah ok it would be the same even if the scores moved on to next games) but there's the mental aspect that you have to score 3 times to get even rather than starting from clean slate. | ||
|
Tanith
United Kingdom108 Posts
| ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On November 10 2010 23:43 Daray wrote: I think this extended series is weird and in a way i understand why people support it but i just can't grasp the concept since it's not used in any other sport well not that i know of. I mean what if on a regular NHL season 2 teams played each other 4 times. Team A beats team B 4-1 in the first match so game 2 should start 4-1 for team A, right? This is where it gets fooked. It's no fun for the viewers, maybe team B were hungover and they didn't play their best or team A could've used weird special tactics! and now team B knows what to do to counter it (yeah ok it would be the same even if the scores moved on to next games) but there's the mental aspect that you have to score 3 times to get even rather than starting from clean slate. Hockey uses a different format and has their own timetable for it. Weekend tournaments only have a few days to try and determine who the best player is. | ||
|
Eury
Sweden1126 Posts
With double elimination the final feels a bit anti-climatic and boring, when it should be the highpoint of the whole tournament. | ||
|
Darksteel
Finland319 Posts
LO3, MLG interviews (great thanks to uNcontroLable) and SotG in my opinion gave the community a great coverage of the players and thoughts. P.S and even if some of them got drunk after tournament, whats wrong with that =) | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
On November 10 2010 23:31 Mothxal wrote: You can't just say that there is one instance where single-elimination creates results that badly reflect the "real" skill-hierarchy, and that's when two higher ranked players face eachother early on. This can be fixed with seeding anyway. It is absolutely ridiculous to be okay with seeding and not with extended series. My mind is exploding about this contradiction. Seeding is justified along the same lines that extended series are except they're way more extreme and harder to defend. You want results from entirely different tournaments, played months before, against different sets of players, to give advantages in this tournament via seeding, but you don't want Person A who beat Person B in THIS tournament no more than ~50 hours ago to get any credit when playing Person B again. Wowowow whaaaaaat. Anyway, I haven't limited myself to the problems with single elimination I've mentioned. There could be a million problems with single elimination and millions of problems with brackets in general. I don't have to be comprehensive here. My point is that double elim fixes a problem with single elim and extended series fixes a problem with double elim. Explaining how double elim works as a response to why having extended series is bad just doesn't make sense. It's not a good response. | ||
|
Daray
6006 Posts
On November 10 2010 23:53 robertdinh wrote: Hockey uses a different format and has their own timetable for it. Weekend tournaments only have a few days to try and determine who the best player is. Meh, should've used some imaganinary league. My point was why is it useable here but not in any other format? Double elim. makes it somehow ok? round robin into single elimination ok here? double round robin should we use it here also? Guess im just raging cause i hate it :D | ||
|
Aquafresh
United States824 Posts
Anyway I really liked the discussion though, both sides made really good points and then Day[9] brought down the math-hammer, which was awesome. I just want to add that when they say "We did it in Halo" (paraphrased) they mean that this is how they have run ALL their tournaments, and this is the format they think gives the best results. I don't think it is especially suited or unsuited to one game or the other, it's just the result of their tournamnet theory. | ||
|
dartoo
India2889 Posts
Tyler razor sharp S notes are killing my ears  | ||
|
Windd
United States161 Posts
On November 10 2010 23:17 Liquid`Tyler wrote: \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: And here is what I wrote in the MLG feedback thread I'm looking forward to the Lee episode =] Tyler as a philosophy student, fellow husbandtoss (though definitely not deserving of that name) who thinks you're a awesome in general, I disagree with you on this. Your argument is that double elimination determines ranks more accurately and this is the purpose of the format. This is one aspect of the format. It is one really awesome aspect of it. And it may be the original intent for the institution of it, but double elimination ends up having a much broader effect and this effect is more interesting to viewers than having better ranks. In single elimination you are given one chance to win. In double elimination you are given two chances to win. That is the difference reasons for it coming into existence or not. Having two chances to win does result in having more accurate tournament rankings, just as having best of threes instead of best of ones, but I think this is the result of having players play more games and against more players. I have more to say on that but I think I'll hold off for now because I think the rest requires thought I'm not capable of at this time in the morning after 3 hours of sleep. Now the assumption of the purpose of double elim is having more accurate ranks seems to lead you to believe that when knocked down to losers you should be at a tremendous disadvantage. This I think is because you lost to person x, there for you should be ranked lower than person x, as it works in the tournament in general and what the extended series down is it give you a chance to still prove that you are better than them. If you are you can prove it by beating them while they have an advantage, because you kinda shouldn't have gotten a chance in the first place it's a fault of the system. I can understand one way to approach this view, hopefully I somewhat accurately approach your point of view and am not just talking out of my ass. If you view tournament performance at a single tournament as a whole to be the determination of rank, then you're right it shouldn't matter if you have a small disadvantage you are the better player at this tournament and will preform better. I think what is actually the case is it is determined by a compilation of different performances inside multiple matches and multiple games. There are constant stresses and strains and the tournament is a compilation of those moments. The tournament is the result of that compilation which is more than the overview that spectators like, I get to see. For example, you get an really weak bracket on day 1 and win despite not sleeping, rest well the next day and play at a level above everyone at the tournament and win the whole thing. If you faced good players the first day though, you would have been eliminated.. Another expample: Idra plays Nazgul does horrible the first game. He manages a win in game 2, and is feeling back in shape and inspried. Now however, he has to play on Kulas, where is at an unfair disadvantage due to a crappy map pool and will lose even if he plays to the best of his abilities. You could say, he should have won the first two games if he were really the best player and he's lucky to get the second chance. That is not really what the format of best of 3 is supposed to do. He is supposed to have a decent chance to win that third game too, even with a loser picks style map selection. However in this situation he is seated with an unfair advantage and I think it is the same with an extended series. The extended seats the players with an unfair advantage because winning a best of three in winners should not give one an extra advantage against anyone is the losers bracket Just as not winning both games of his match should not give him a ridiculous disadvantage in game 3. This is because a double elimination is about giving people two chances, not just about determining accurate rank. You still do get a disadvantage of going to the losers bracket early and having to play a lot more games, just as losing a the first game in a best of 3 with loser's pick gives the other player the map pick advantage in game 3 if you win game 2. I both case the disadvantage should not be so drastic that the matches ever feel like one players is at a huge disadvantage as they are supposed to be isolated events. If you view it only as two separate chances, there is no reason why there should be an extended series and I think the only reason you are is because that main feature of double elim is so awesome that it is making that idea of it being the purpose arise in your head. The other problem with argument is I don't see why the losers bracket should get a chance to play against the winners at all. The winners bracket winner defeated, in a long chain, whoever defeated you, thus should be higher ranked than you.(The long chain notion is weak though.) (Blah like I said earlier hope I'm not talking out my ass.) | ||
|
NoXious90
United Kingdom160 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On November 11 2010 00:00 Liquid`Tyler wrote: It is absolutely ridiculous to be okay with seeding and not with extended series. My mind is exploding about this contradiction. Seeding is justified along the same lines that extended series are except they're way more extreme and harder to defend. You want results from entirely different tournaments, played months before, against different sets of players, to give advantages in this tournament via seeding, but you don't want Person A who beat Person B in THIS tournament no more than ~50 hours ago to get any credit when playing Person B again. Wowowow whaaaaaat. Anyway, I haven't limited myself to the problems with single elimination I've mentioned. There could be a million problems with single elimination and millions of problems with brackets in general. I don't have to be comprehensive here. My point is that double elim fixes a problem with single elim and extended series fixes a problem with double elim. Explaining how double elim works as a response to why having extended series is bad just doesn't make sense. It's not a good response. Surprisingly enough there aren't angry polls about how we must destroy the menace of seeding players. There is such a thing as the integrity of a tournament; basically, if it is seen as a credible event by the players and spectators whose results reflect "something". It isn't possible to accurately measure someone's relative skill in the timespan of a tournament, yet winning them still has to be valuable and an accomplishment, and that can only be achieved if winning when it matters is worthwhile. If you start to obsess about the most truthful measuring system in such a short period then you're chasing something you can never accomplish anyway. If this now starts to be a higher priority than the actual place some players have in the brackets and such, then, as can be seen from the viewer reaction, people will start to find it ridiculous. Seeding on the other hand is a relatively harmless approach to trying to get the results more reflective of real skill, because the tournament's integrity isn't compromised in any way. The rules are still exactly the same, it's just the matches that are somewhat more balanced now. It doesn't matter what they are based on, as long as it's transparent and impartial (and based on past results of course). Even if they don't seem to help a lot, just helping a bit is still helpful and doesn't negatively impact anything of importance. | ||
|
NoXious90
United Kingdom160 Posts
Tournaments are simply spectacles, forms of entertainment for people to watch and enjoy. For players, tournaments provide an opportunity for players to compete against other high level players whilst offering them a chance to win prize money. Nothing more. The bottom line is, the extended series rule has an adverse impact on the entertainment value of the tournament that greatly outweights whatever insurance it provides against 'inferior' players beating 'superior' players through luck or some other perceived illegitimate method of victory. This rule is especially detrimental when it comes into play during the grand final, which is supposed to be the culmination of the entire tournament - where the two best players of the tournament face off against one another to decide the ultimate winner. If you have a grand final which begins with one player having a significant advantage over the other, the spectacle of such a match is greatly reduced. | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On November 11 2010 00:30 Mothxal wrote: Surprisingly enough there aren't angry polls about how we must destroy the menace of seeding players. There is such a thing as the integrity of a tournament; basically, if it is seen as a credible event by the players and spectators whose results reflect "something". It isn't possible to accurately measure someone's relative skill in the timespan of a tournament, yet winning them still has to be valuable and an accomplishment, and that can only be achieved if winning when it matters is worthwhile. If you start to obsess about the most truthful measuring system in such a short period then you're chasing something you can never accomplish anyway. If this now starts to be a higher priority than the actual place some players have in the brackets and such, then, as can be seen from the viewer reaction, people will start to find it ridiculous. Seeding on the other hand is a relatively harmless approach to trying to get the results more reflective of real skill, because the tournament's integrity isn't compromised in any way. The rules are still exactly the same, it's just the matches that are somewhat more balanced now. It doesn't matter what they are based on, as long as it's transparent and impartial (and based on past results of course). Even if they don't seem to help a lot, just helping a bit is still helpful and doesn't negatively impact anything of importance. The tournaments integrity is stronger with extended series than with straight double elim. Since a bo7 is the best way to determine the stronger of 2 players, over 2 bo3's. The reason it is met with such opposition is people don't truly understand it's purpose, or they have a skewed perspective of what tournament competition should be. Then there are a few who don't think players that lose games in the winner's bracket should be accountable for those losses. But as tyler sorta mentioned, if you want to take the clean-slate-in-the-loser-bracket approach you should also oppose the whole seeding system since that isn't a clean slate and gives certain players advantages based on how they placed in a previous tourney. On November 11 2010 00:38 robertdinh wrote: The tournaments integrity is stronger with extended series than with straight double elim. Since a bo7 is the best way to determine the stronger of 2 players, over 2 bo3's. The reason it is met with such opposition is people don't truly understand it's purpose, or they have a skewed perspective of what tournament competition should be. Then there are a few who don't think players that lose games in the winner's bracket should be accountable for those losses. But as tyler sorta mentioned, if you want to take the clean-slate-in-the-loser-bracket approach you should also oppose the whole seeding system since that isn't a clean slate and gives certain players advantages based on how they placed in a previous tourney. On November 11 2010 00:36 NoXious90 wrote: Amidst all this debate about the true higher 'purpose' of tournaments as indicators of player skill or whatever, you're overlooking one very simple thing. Tournaments are simply spectacles, forms of entertainment for people to watch and enjoy. For players, tournaments provide an opportunity for players to compete against other high level players whilst offering them a chance to win prize money. The bottom line is, the extended series rule has an adverse impact on the entertainment value of the tournament that greatly outweights whatever insurance it provides against 'inferior' players beating 'superior' players through luck or some other perceived illegitimate method of victory. This rule is especially detrimental when it comes into play during the grand final, which is supposed to be the culmination of the entire tournament - where the two best players of the tournament face off against one another to decide the ultimate winner. If you have a grand final which begins with one player having a significant advantage over the other, the spectacle of such a match is greatly reduced. To put it plainly the people who object to extended series are the ones that are going to be most vocal about it. There are plenty of spectators who: 1. Would prefer a tournament with as much integrity as possible 2. Don't care enough either way and just want to kick back and casually watch some SC2 and old spice commercials. If people had legitimate arguments that outweighed the benefits of extended series it would be one thing. But from what I've heard even on the cast, they don't really understand the implications of it all, they don't even think tournaments are supposed to strive to determine the strongest player in the tourney. Yet they strongly oppose something they don't even fully understand. It also seems like when tyler was discussing it on SOTG, they were just bogging him down with ultimately irrelevant arguments that loosely related to the issue at hand, instead of really addressing his points in a reasonable manner. | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
| ||
|
TrevorJK
United States77 Posts
| ||
|
NoXious90
United Kingdom160 Posts
On November 11 2010 00:40 robertdinh wrote: To put it plainly the people who object to extended series are the ones that are going to be most vocal about it. There are plenty of spectators who: 1. Would prefer a tournament with as much integrity as possible 2. Don't care enough either way and just want to kick back and casually watch some SC2 and old spice commercials. The so-called integrity that would be lost if the tournament didn't follow the extended series rule would be insignificant. The GSL doesn't have an extended series rule, neither does the NFL, nor the World Cup. They all seem to do fine as far as perceived legitimacy goes, and more importantly, provide amazing spectacles which any fan worth their salt will want to see. | ||
| ||
