EPTOfficial State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 212
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Firereaver
India1701 Posts
| ||
|
NoXious90
United Kingdom160 Posts
On November 11 2010 01:21 maliceee wrote: 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. so, let me ask you this (because this is what my point boils down to), what do you think the majority of people would enjoy more as a spectacle, a grand final featuring two players who have to play a Bo7 to decide the winner, where the score starts out at 0-0 or a grand final featuring two players where one player goes into the match with a two game advantage? I know which one would be more exciting for me personally. as far as football goes, yes, you're correct that many round robin/knockout tournaments use an aggregate scoring format fairly similar to the one used at mlg, however, this is never ever used in the final match, not in the uefa cup, champions league or any other major tournament of that nature. This is because it would risk severely diluting the spectacle of the grand final, where the two best teams are supposed to play off in an epic match to decide the ultimate winner. Having this aggregate rule in place dampens the luster of the final match. see: idra vs select, ttone vs jinro for evidence of this. | ||
|
dtz
5834 Posts
If A beat B earlier in Winner Bracket 2-0 and then lets say A and B meet again in Lower Bracket Round 10, A will start with a 2-0 advantage However if A meet C who he has not beaten before then the series starts from 0-0. Then this adds a random element to A's pathway in the tournament because he'll have a much easier series if he meets B compared to C. This does not make sense because when A meet B or C in Lower Bracket Round 10, B and C is supposed to be of equal standing and that they have earned their spot and thus they are in the same round. Yet, B will have a disadvantage because he lost to A earlier while C would not be punished for losing to whoever he lost to in the Winner Bracket in that particular series. I believe this is the point that Idra and InControl was trying to make and I fully agree with this point of view. I can also recognise the merit of extended series which is to make sure that the better player between the 2 advance. but this might cause some player's path in the tournament to be easier/harder than the other. | ||
|
Firereaver
India1701 Posts
Priceless. Sorry Day but I agree with Tyler. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
SmoKim
Denmark10301 Posts
On November 11 2010 03:18 Jibba wrote: I'm not gonna lie, I got a hardon when Day9 went math major all over Tyler. glad im not the only one and i even fucking hated math, Day9 should have been my teacher | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On November 11 2010 02:50 dizzy101 wrote: 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? actually the argument was that there is no practical way to determine a ranking given a weekend of games, and that any method that attempts that is so hilariously flawed its not worthwhile. but that aside the extended series doesnt even contribute to establishing a decent ranking. if you come back to play someone again in the losers bracket that means youve beaten a bunch of people that he hasnt, and that he has lost to someone that you havent. whos to say that the original winner is the better player in those circumstances? yes it feels shitty to be eliminated by someone you had a winning record on, but its also pretty shitty to be eliminated by someone who then goes on to lose to someone you beat earlier in the tournament. you can't just look at each individual pair of players when its a competition between 128 players. plus the extended series creates a few stupid scenarios, for instance in dc i was rooting for huk to make it through instead of select, even though i had better odds vs select, simply because i already had a 2-0 lead on huk. that strikes me as kind of wrong. also, in dallas jinro went into the finals 2-1 on tt1 in a bo7. had they not played tt1 would have had to win 2 bo3's to jinro's 1. this means jinro actually had less of an advantage in the finals because he had already beaten tt1 earlier in the tournament. the purpose of this kind of tournament is to see who wins the tournament. as such the rules should be focused on producing a fair competition. extended series dont do that, and in some cases are actually counter productive. | ||
|
NoXious90
United Kingdom160 Posts
On November 11 2010 02:50 dizzy101 wrote: 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. So by your standards and logic, are you satisfied then that Jinro and TTOne are the two absolute best players in North America? | ||
|
eAzydaman
83 Posts
| ||
|
YourMom
Romania565 Posts
| ||
|
vaahto
65 Posts
Firstly, I think the primary goals of a tournament in a spectator sport should be to find the best player, and to provide entertainment for the viewers. The first should be obvious, and in a spectator sport the viewers bring the sponsors, which allow tournaments to be organized in the first place. Both should be considered important when designing a tournament system. Determining the ranking order of everyone else should be secondary to the primary goals. I don't agree that head-to-head matches are always the best method of determining the best player. If you are only allowed to play one series, then playing against your opponent is the best method. However games against other people also give relevant information compared to a simple match with the opponent. This is just a hypothetical example, and only meant to demonstrate that games played against other people matter: Let's say A plays B in a series and wins. Then A plays against a specific 100 strong people, and loses 100 games. B plays against the same specific 100 people, and wins 100 games. In this case, how do we determine the "stronger player?" I would argue that B should be considered the stronger player with a nearly 100% likelihood. One game against a random person isn't nearly as important for determining relevant strength as one game against the opponent in question of course. However I'd say 100 games against other people is absolutely far more important than 1 head to head series. So the information given by games against other people isn't zero. Somewhere between 1 and 100 the information given is closer to equal. Let's say A and B are facing each other in an extended series, and A has the advantage of having won a previous series. - The extended series is unfair for B, because A has all the advantage of having won the previous game against B, but none of the disadvantage of having lost to someone else when B did not. - Not having the extended series is unfair for A, because he gets none of the advantage of having already beaten B previously, because a mutual game should count for more than a game against someone else. However I'd say the extended series is also unfair for everyone else participating in the tournament. In a double elimination you are effectively allowed to lose 2 series before you drop out of the tournament. If you get lucky and face off against the same opponent twice, you are allowed to lose 3 series worth of games before dropping out of the tournament. You thus have more room for mistakes than everyone else in the tournament to get to the same place. The extended series is also bad for entertainment value, which is why I don't support it. I can understand the arguments for it though. | ||
|
Barthus
21 Posts
| ||
|
Shocae
United States141 Posts
| ||
|
FliedLice
Germany7494 Posts
On November 11 2010 03:41 Shocae wrote: Where are the interviews mentioned with InControl's girlfriend? all over the liquid weekly.... also: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/wjLCi.jpg) | ||
|
Fries
United States124 Posts
Idra and Incontrol are correct in that tournaments are not necessarily about trying to "rank" the players but rather each are separate events to simply see who was playing the best in that tournament. And that's part of what makes tournaments so exciting and fun. However, Tyler is correct in saying that the purpose of a losers bracket is to give a superior player essentially a do-over. Just in case a good player loses a series early or got a bad match-up, here's a shot to get back into it and come out on top. Therefore Tyler is also correct that the purpose of the losers bracket is to make the tournament results more accurate as to who the better player was. Therefore I'm going to have to agree with all points! If we're going to have a losers bracket to essentially lessen the chance of a good player being eliminated "unfairly" early, then it doesn't seem to make sense to not go all the way down this path and lessen the chance even more with the extended series. That said, part of what makes tournaments so exciting and fun to watch is that really anything can happen. I can see this point as well. Therefore trying to think about this only logically, I think the conclusion I'm coming to is that there are two good solutions here: Keep the double elimination with extended series, anything can still happen but it theoretically should be a bigger upset for a "lesser" player to win. Get rid of the losers bracket entirely. If you lose your a match you're out. We still get the excitement of the tournament format, we should still end up seeing more favorites go forward than be eliminated, MLG gets to cast a greater percentage of the games being played and the players don't necessarily have to play as much. | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
| ||
|
Firereaver
India1701 Posts
| ||
|
StarCraft64
United States354 Posts
On November 11 2010 03:51 Firereaver wrote: Indrajit is an INDIAN mythological character not NATIVE AMERICAN. Pretty sure they prefer "Native American." | ||
|
btlyger
United States470 Posts
Geoff Frazier. Props to anyone who knows who that is. | ||
|
dizzy101
Netherlands2066 Posts
On November 11 2010 03:30 NoXious90 wrote:So by your standards and logic, are you satisfied then that Jinro and TTOne are the two absolute best players in North America? No. This is what I said: The current system is the best way to APPROXIMATE a ranking among the competitors, without having to play an insane number of games. Idra's point is: The current system is SO BAD at creating a ranking that it shouldn't really be considered its goal. So we might as well modify it to avoid certain odd/ugly situations. That's a consistent point of view as well. | ||
| ||
