|
On November 11 2010 00:46 Titan48 wrote:
Tyler did they explain why if Jinro were to have lost the final Bo7, he would he would have been out of the tournament? Instead of doing an extended Bo7 and then a Bo3 they cut the final Bo3. Meaning Jinro could have lost the tournament without getting put into the loser's bracket. I suppose it could be more interesting for the fans, but it still fucks over the Winner's bracket winner.
It doesn't really screw him over since he actually starts with a lead unless they've never played before, in which case I think they do the 2 bo3s.
On November 11 2010 00:47 NoXious90 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 00:40 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 00:38 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 00:30 Mothxal wrote:On November 11 2010 00:00 Liquid`Tyler wrote: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. 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 00:36 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. 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.
Apples and oranges, those tourneys, sports leagues, etc have different timetables and formats through and through.
You say the amount of integrity it lost would be insignificant, well if a player got elim'd by someone he went 3-2 vs I think that would be a pretty significant loss of integrity for a tourney if it is trying to figure out who the strongest players are.
|
On November 10 2010 23:21 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
And in case you're very confused about why I'd say that in the MLG feedback thread, I think it's from the same line of thought that Sean brought up in the podcast. They're just different systems.
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.
Don't be a pansy and just lie down on this, stand up for what is ultimately the better way to structure a tournament. You're one of the few pros that actually understands the system, as well as actually having first hand experience of both types of system, so is more qualified than others to explain why it is better.
The only real argument against the extended series is from people that don't understand the system and want to just use what they are familiar with. That shit is just ignorant, once people get used to the extended series format then people will ask why the hell this wasn't used from the start, it is that much better, you know it.
Why just lay down and say "yeah alright whatever, just do it the old way"? Sometimes change is good and not changing becasue people are just used to the old way of doing it is stupid.
Just becasue worse systems were used in the past doesn't mean we have to keep plodding on the with the same shit. The only reason to not use the extended series is maintain the status quo from SC/BW tournaments like WCG and really was WCG ever a particularly good tournament? Not really, MLG is already better and really the community should embrace progression when comes, not crying about it not being the same as what they are used to.
Ignorance should not be reason to halt progression.
|
I don't know why people go in saying extended series rule is making a diservice to the fans and viewers... I agree that they were stupid to say that they did that because it was a Halo rule, but it became a halo rule because it does good things. If I get to the grand finals and it has happened on multiple occasions where the grand final is someone the Winners bracket has already sent to the losers bracket. (Jinro did send TTone to the losers bracket and fairly recently, and many many grand finals come down to extended series)
I want the finals to be a Bo7 not two best of threes. Where you could end up with situations where replays go out and the second place guy goes 3-2 vs the winner and got handed the smaller check.
On Day[9]'s argument. I agree you can't go arbitrarely saying that X format is better than Y. However the more games you play the better the predicted result will be. A BoInfinity will be infinitely more accurate than a Bo1. Playing more games will end up with better results. It's why single elimination is gives weaker predictions than double. It's also why putting in extended series will give slightly better results, but if anything, it will give much more entertaining finals. They can get rid of that rule, but then if you go down that line of though: Why double elimination? GSL doesn't do it, yet people complain all the time that they got a bad bracket. Why give player seeds so that higher seeds ends up against new guys first?
|
I don't know why people go in saying extended series rule is making a diservice to the fans and viewers..
People do not like a grand finals being 2 matches long and only lasting 15 minutes because someone cheeses or 4gates or something.
|
On November 11 2010 01:02 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +I don't know why people go in saying extended series rule is making a diservice to the fans and viewers.. People do not like a grand finals being 2 matches long and only lasting 15 minutes because someone cheeses or 4gates or something.
Hate to break it to you but even if the finals were done the traditional double elim way, the loser losing 2 matches in 15minutes would still mean the tourney is over. Since the winner only has to win 1 bo3.
|
On November 11 2010 01:04 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 01:02 Fa1nT wrote:I don't know why people go in saying extended series rule is making a diservice to the fans and viewers.. People do not like a grand finals being 2 matches long and only lasting 15 minutes because someone cheeses or 4gates or something. Hate to break it to you but even if the finals were done the traditional double elim way, the loser losing 2 matches in 15minutes would still mean the tourney is over. Since the winner only has to win 1 bo3.
The finals should always be at least a fresh BO7 regardless of who the players played or lost to earlier in the series of games 
|
I haven't listened to the podcast yet, and I've only skimmed the thread, but I don't have a bunch of time, so Imma leave this here real quick and maybe expand on it later.
Everyone wants tournaments to accurately reflect the true skill of the competitors. One way to interpret this is that the person in 2nd place should, in general, be able to beat 3rd place more often than not, and lose to 1st place more often than not, if they all play at the level they did in the tournament. The biggest problem with this is that StarCraft is not always a transitive game. That is, player A might beat player B 60% of the time, B beats C 60%, and C beats A 60%. This makes since since StarCraft is a very asymmetrical game with respect to races, maps, and build orders.
I feel like the most sensible approach for tournaments in asymmetrical games is theSwiss System. In StarCraft as a spectator sport, they would probably drop to the top8 and just run a standard quarterfinals. I played in Magic The Gathering tournaments for while, and I really liked the system. The best part, I think, is that you can stay in the tournament even after you have no chance at first place. Since the open system of MLG leads to a high disparity in skill levels, it would let the second tier players fight for placement points and get practice in the tournament setting. Also, Swiss is both extended series and seeding neutral- either could be implemented very naturally within it.
The two major downfalls for StarCraft would be tiebreakers and, of course, tournament-gaming (for instance, I'm mathematically guaranteed to make it to the knock-out quarterfinals, so I forfeit my last match to help a weaker player get into the RO8.
Sorry for such a sparse explanation. In a lot of ways a swiss system is almost identical to a double elimination round in term of determining the top four players, but allows for a much flatter and fairer prize/prestige curve. I haven't thought about it terribly much, but decided to post in case someone might see an immediate problem with the idea and eliminate my need to think on it :-)
|
@ nony/incontrol
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=167090¤tpage=7#125
On November 08 2010 04:19 Sen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 04:13 wishbones wrote:On November 08 2010 04:08 Wr3k wrote:
i lol'ed so hard when hes just like
HAHA sentry imba (FF's lings)
HAHA sentry imba (FF's more lings)
HAHA yeah he even took his hands off to brag even more during that haha. then he gets an achievement, priceless lol. maybe even an FF achievement if they have any. which would have made it more hilarious lol. ya ~~ achievement of SENtry imba lol , btw we had just having fun in this video , sentry are not really that imba ( its just very very useful in pvz ) there are lot of way actually zerg can do to counter with :DD
|
On November 11 2010 01:09 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 01:04 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 01:02 Fa1nT wrote:I don't know why people go in saying extended series rule is making a diservice to the fans and viewers.. People do not like a grand finals being 2 matches long and only lasting 15 minutes because someone cheeses or 4gates or something. Hate to break it to you but even if the finals were done the traditional double elim way, the loser losing 2 matches in 15minutes would still mean the tourney is over. Since the winner only has to win 1 bo3. The finals should always be at least a fresh BO7 regardless of who the players played or lost to earlier in the series of games
You could do that for the spectators but it's tough because then it basically punishes the winner bracket finalist because he has not lost up to that point whereas the loser bracket finalist has.
|
Another amazing SOTG :>
Good luck in korea incontrol!
|
On November 11 2010 00:47 NoXious90 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 00:40 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 00:38 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 00:30 Mothxal wrote:On November 11 2010 00:00 Liquid`Tyler wrote: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. 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 00:36 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. 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.
Nfl has a regular season that establishes seeds, then has a playoff that cannot be a best of series because of physical limitations. It is one of the reasons college football does not enact playoffs or a plus 1 game, injuries plus time off from school would be a bitch to get enacted. Not only that, people question the NFL champion's legitimacy all the time, lol, who honestly thought the NY giants had a better team then the patriots?
World cup has pool play followed by the final's games, but those games are also contrained by time and budget. If you knew what you were talking about you would know almost all professional football leagues have a best of series at home and away and how much you win by and score matters. So that example is shit honestly, because a team could win 3-1 at home then lose 2-0 away and they would not progress. The reason they can do that is because there aren't as many constraints as in the world cup.
If starcraft has the time to use the best system they should, and they are right now. It's being stubborn trying to use the old system because that is what you are familiar with.
|
I started a short response, it became lengthy, I realized I would have to spend so much time with it just to understand what I am thinking myself before theorizing what is better. So I just stopped it and read a bit more. Now I am reading theory about Swiss-System tournaments (thank you pullarius -.-) and everything gets even more complicated and now I am frustrated that I cannot come up with something worth reading within 15 minutes. And if it gets 2 pages long, noone is going to read it anyway.
Yeah sorry, not a very productive post in any way, just needed to express my frustration.
The only thing I can come up with that you should really be careful before you call one system plain better then the other. This
On November 11 2010 00:38 robertdinh wrote:
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.
attitude does not get your very far. Not everyone who has another approach has a skewed perspective.
|
If the opponents of the extended series are argumenting, that the purpose of a tournament is not to determine the better player but to determine the winner, then they should simply go further in their argumentation and oppose also the double elimination. Cause in some regard you can also say: "the player got eleminated, so he should simply be out".
Getting an second chance is artificial. Extended series are artificial.
My opionion? The tournament format, as it is, is good. Maybe it should be called "Improved double elemination", to cover the introduction of the extended series.
(I share Tyler's point of view, that being eleminated by a player, you have a record of 3-2 against in a certain tournament feels bad.)
|
On November 11 2010 01:40 Malinor wrote:I started a short response, it became lengthy, I realized I would have to spend so much time with it just to understand what I am thinking myself before theorizing what is better. So I just stopped it and read a bit more. Now I am reading theory about Swiss-System tournaments (thank you pullarius -.-) and everything gets even more complicated and now I am frustrated that I cannot come up with something worth reading within 15 minutes. And if it gets 2 pages long, noone is going to read it anyway. Yeah sorry, not a very productive post in any way, just needed to express my frustration. The only thing I can come up with that you should really be careful before you call one system plain better then the other. This Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 00:38 robertdinh wrote:
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.
attitude does not get your very far. Not everyone who has another approach has a skewed perspective.
Well it being skewed is only an opinion that may or may not be accurate, in my opinion people have a skewed perspective of SC2 tourneys like MLG events if they think the purpose isn't to find the best player in the timeframe they are given to host these tourneys.
|
My previous was heading exactly towards this. Absolutely correct.
On November 11 2010 00:00 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
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.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Clarification; not nervous - was sick ;/
|
On November 11 2010 02:05 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 01:40 Malinor wrote:I started a short response, it became lengthy, I realized I would have to spend so much time with it just to understand what I am thinking myself before theorizing what is better. So I just stopped it and read a bit more. Now I am reading theory about Swiss-System tournaments (thank you pullarius -.-) and everything gets even more complicated and now I am frustrated that I cannot come up with something worth reading within 15 minutes. And if it gets 2 pages long, noone is going to read it anyway. Yeah sorry, not a very productive post in any way, just needed to express my frustration. The only thing I can come up with that you should really be careful before you call one system plain better then the other. This On November 11 2010 00:38 robertdinh wrote:
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.
attitude does not get your very far. Not everyone who has another approach has a skewed perspective. Well it being skewed is only an opinion that may or may not be accurate, in my opinion people have a skewed perspective of SC2 tourneys like MLG events if they think the purpose isn't to find the best player in the timeframe they are given to host these tourneys.
Truth be told, I didn't like their phrasing very much. They made it sound like a tournament is more or less just an event with some random winner. As reality tells us, this is obviously not the case. So yeah, I understand were you are coming from. I just think it is important to note that we are dealing with two different systems, which share a lot of similarities:
The main rule of a double-elimination tournament is: Lose 2xBo3 against any opponents and you are out.
(obviously, this is only true for a Bo3 tournament)
With the extended-series, this rule changes to: Lose 2xBo3 against two different opponents or 1xBo7 against a specific player, where this Bo7 is played at two different points in time.
If extended-series is "superior" to double-elimination is basically a function of how much importance you assign to the head-to-head comparision between two players in a tournament where you have at least 8 series to play and at least 7 players to beat (for 128 players that is).
|
Woah this thread got derailed. But isn't that what this is about? =P
Not going to comment on the tourney thing, already did that, nobody listened =P
A few comments (even though I say these as I listen to the podcast)
1) HOORAY for turning down the high frequency on Nony's mike. Thanks so much for doing that guys.
2) I like it when Nony talks and he's been doing a lot more of that. So that should continue =D
3) I feel like all the shizzles about people saying "Oh my is me... they're so unprofessional.... blah... imba imba world" affected the first hour of the podcast because man InControl was tame for a while. But then... well then the gloves came off and InControl came alive and everything was awesome again.
So don't put those gloves on =D Professionalism is all and good and should probably still be considered when thinking about where the line is, but don't let it dull down the rest of the content!
TL:DR
AMazing podcast as usual guys! Keep it up and keep it going.
|
On November 11 2010 00:00 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Tyler you're absolutely right that from an analytical point of view extended series lets the better player through.
BUT based upon the following assumptions:
1) All games played by the players are played under the same mental state, regardless of where they are in the tournament. I.E. The players play the first Bo3 AS IF it is the start of a Bo7.
2) The series that the players played before is a better indication of their relative skill levels than the fact that the LB bracket player has beaten every other player that was knocked out of the tournament at the stage he was; whilst the LB bracket player has just lost.
You're essentially saying, the increased number of wins in the LB don't count when judging the LB players' skill level versus the WB skill level.
Assumption 1) is very easy to argue against.
Assumption 2) is even easier. When playing a SC tournament you aren't even playing the same game. PvT is not PvZ is not PvP. It's not Halo.
If the LB player has beaten extra players of all different styles/races to get back to face the WB player he has shown a lot of evidence that his skill may be higher than the WB player despite the fact he lost to him earlier. If you were attributing skill on an ELO rank from Day1 of the tournament the LB player could theoretically have a higher ELO at this point in the tournament having beaten extra players.
And then even more than that I can argue that the goal is wrong is the first place.
The reason to play Bo3 double-elimination is not only to get the best2 players at the top. It's because it's a fantastic format for getting lots of exciting matchups between top players and it works beautifully for streaming too.
|
Tyler is correct (and has the most common sense). Double-elimination bracket with extended series is the best way to APPROXIMATE a ranking of players in a limited number of games.
Idra and Incontrol seem to be arguing: tournaments are imperfect in creating a ranking, therefore their goal is not to create a ranking. This is not a good argument. Day9's math-impaired dice analogy was besides the point.
If tournaments are not to rank players, why not flip a coin to determine the winner? Or shortest straw?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
