|
Your argument makes no sense.
Double elimination was traditionally used in games without a series i.e. Bo1 formats.
This means it was always intended to have lower bracket users knocked out with a possible 1:1 record.
Also you are speaking of absolutes (the better player doesn't always win - one of the reasons why double elimination is in place) - if player A has 80% chance of beating player B, and let's B knocks A into the lower bracket. B follows shortly - why should B have a distinct advantage over A in the lower bracket if they meet? You just made one of the reasons of having double elimin useless.
|
thanks for a great episode once again. Highlight of my starcraft-week for sure! Would love to have artosis guest the show again because my favourite episodes is with him 
|
On November 11 2010 22:57 throttled wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 14:44 Wargizmo wrote:
IdrA seemed to be the only person on the podcast that actually 'gets it' with regard to the extended series.
The whole point of double elim is to give everyone two lives. The people who have to play an extended series from behind essentially only get one life, they lose one best of 7 and they're out of the whole tournament.
Tylers point about being 2-2 against someone on aggregate but still getting put out of the tournament is completely invalid, because the guy is out because he lost twice not because he's better or worse than the other player. The other player is still in the tournament because he only lost once.
People are trying to argue from this perspective and they are straight up factually wrong. Double elimination was never created to give lesser players a second chance, it was created to give stronger players a cushion from bad seeding. Player B is stronger than player C and player D. Player A is a little weaker than player B and stronger than player D and C. First round bad seeding puts up Player A against player B and Player C against player D. In single elimination, Player A has a very small chance of moving on despite being better than half the players in the tournament. Hence double elimination was created in order to try to ensure the strongest players make it farther in the tournament.However the "Two Bo3's" format completely undermines this. If you already beat the person in the winners bracket, not only would you have knocked them out completely in the truest form of a tournament (Single elimination), but you could actually lose by going 3-2 in your games. Having only "lost once" is irrelevant. You are getting a consolation bracket, not to "give you a second chance because you're weaker", but to protect you from going against a player slightly stronger than you in early rounds while you are still stronger than a lot of players in the tournament. As I have said before: If there was a way to have perfect seeding the person who lost first would be completely out of the tournament after that loss. To have the person that was knocked out of an ideal tournament (single elimination), be able to lose to a player 2-3 overall and have the original winner knocked out is ludicrous, because the purpose of double elimination is to ensure the stronger players make it farther in the tournament.Extended Series fixes this.
In double elimination there's no wins really, only losses are significant. Lose twice you're out. The last person to not lose twice wins. That's why in the grand finals there's 2 Bo3''s. Extended series ruins this.
It's not lucicrous if you're a total of 2-3 and lose, they're seperate Bo3's and you both lost two lives. It's your fault you can't clutch with your last life and that you lost your first life. He was in the same situation and he came on top, he was better in that series.
Extended series format does NOT favor better players at all, it's totally the opposite. If you really are the better player, you should be able to defeat the other player in a Bo3. If you weren't quite into it and lost to a worse player 0-2 at the start of the tournament, this format hurts you much more. It now is much more difficult to redeem yourself instead of starting off fresh.
Idra's example totally destroyed the extended series argument so I'm not sure why people still argue about it. The format is horrible. Oh yeah, and they do the finals wrong. At least be consistant and first have an extended series and after that have a Bo3 if the person advancing from the losers' bracket wins the extended series. As is, the player from the winner's bracket will only lose once and both of the players are in the loser's bracket, but the person coming from the losers' bracket wins for no reason.
MLG should learn something about the double elimination bracket system or just use single elimination if it's too complicated. Some of the arguments in this thread and by Nony in the podcast are just unbelievable and illogical.
|
I think it's pretty clear at this point that you can make arguments for and against either format. One is not definitively better than the other, it just comes down to preference.
No matter what tournament structure you use there will always be situations where you think someone didn't place as high as they should've because of the way the tournament was structured. Maybe the winner went 2-1 in all his series and the guy who placed 2nd went 2-0 in all the series he won, and there's always the 'A beat B beat C beat A'.
@ the guy above me
Elimination being defined by losing 2 BO3s is a completely arbitrary definition. Someone advancing with a 2-3 record in 2 BO3s is not better or worse than that person being eliminated in a BO7, it's again just an arbitrary choice of which format to use. There's no norm with which to measure their quality
|
My 2 cents on extended series and tournament modes:
I myself don't really care about statistical analysis and such, i'm more the kind of guy that enjoys watching tourney. Now, there are my points:
1. Extended series in the grand final without a second Bo3 if the LB finalist wins is just not consistent. Why would the guy who made it into the finals via WB have less of an advantage against sby he already defeated 2:1 in an earlier round than sby he never faced before? The extende series intends "protect" the winner of the first match by forcing his opponent to win more games but its quite the opposite in the grand finals. If you lose to the WB finalist beforehand you can get in an even better position than going through two Bo3's.
2. The grand finale is the match everyone's waiting for. The clash of the titans. So please give both the players almost identical chances to win...
How should it be for me to be the most fun to watch:
Bo3 double elimination without extended series (easy to understand)
Bo7 grand finale without any second Bo3 but WB finalist choses first map. (FUN!)
|
I would just like to chime in on the Live on Three discussion that was a part of SotG.
First off, I am a huge djWheat fan. I have enjoyed his commentary and commitment since the days of TsN. He has always been 100% committed to bringing esports to the forefront of media. All of his shows have been really well put together and I am 100% thankful for his contributions to the scene. This naturally extends to Slasher and Scoots.
With that said, I was quite shocked at the location choice for Live on Three. I personally didnt mind the setting. Being a 26 year old male, I know that it is entirely necessary to cut loose and have a good time. I know that it is entirely possible to be a professional while still knocking back a few beers and hanging out with some friends. From a personal standpoint, I thought the Live on Three was great. I enjoyed it more than seeing him just sit behind his computer with Scoots and Slasher talking over skype.
However, like I said, I am surprised that wheat decided to air an "official" Live on Three at a party. He, more than anyone else, should know that potential sponsors and interest groups will look at a community before dumping money into it. It isnt that *I* was appalled at the setting, I just know that if a company like ESPN looked at live on three as a source for community maturity and professionalism, that broadcast would reflect poorly not on the live on three cast, but the starcraft 2 community. If a potential investor saw the Lo3 MLG episode without having previous knowledge of wheat, scoots, and slasher, it would be a terrible first impression based on the environment alone.
This isnt a "Shame on you" post, but I would really like to hear why the Live on Three cast decided to cast in that room at that time. Especially when starcraft 2 is growing at the rate that it is. We are really nearing the cusp of blowing up the US esports scene. I think we, as a community, really need to be on our best behavior.
I understand the fact that wheat is providing a free service, but it is a very popular free service. There are only a couple of personalities that stick out when I think of starcraft 2: Day9, Wheat, JP, Artosis, and Tasteless. Those are really the "faces" of SC2 right now. These are the faces that promote SC2 outside our community. Why negatively impact someones view on SC2, and esports in general, by the setting of a live show?
Also @iNcontroL. I had no idea you were ever apart of the IN clan. I am great friends with INcin from the war2 days and we are poker pals. I always find it quite funny when I read/hear about the IN clan in recent times. INcin was a beast war2 player and it is absolutely hilarious playing starcraft 2 with him because he is so damn awful. :D
|
I didn't think it was the best decision either to have Lo3 at a party. I suppose it's free content, but I thought it was going to be way more focused, so I stayed up to catch it live. The start of it was good enough, but at one point I realized I was watching a livestream of a party. It might be fun to be there, but it was a bit too chaotic and unprofessional to qualify as really worthwhile.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 12 2010 01:45 Siffer wrote:
I would just like to chime in on the Live on Three discussion that was a part of SotG.
First off, I am a huge djWheat fan. I have enjoyed his commentary and commitment since the days of TsN. He has always been 100% committed to bringing esports to the forefront of media. All of his shows have been really well put together and I am 100% thankful for his contributions to the scene. This naturally extends to Slasher and Scoots.
With that said, I was quite shocked at the location choice for Live on Three. I personally didnt mind the setting. Being a 26 year old male, I know that it is entirely necessary to cut loose and have a good time. I know that it is entirely possible to be a professional while still knocking back a few beers and hanging out with some friends. From a personal standpoint, I thought the Live on Three was great. I enjoyed it more than seeing him just sit behind his computer with Scoots and Slasher talking over skype.
However, like I said, I am surprised that wheat decided to air an "official" Live on Three at a party. He, more than anyone else, should know that potential sponsors and interest groups will look at a community before dumping money into it. It isnt that *I* was appalled at the setting, I just know that if a company like ESPN looked at live on three as a source for community maturity and professionalism, that broadcast would reflect poorly not on the live on three cast, but the starcraft 2 community. If a potential investor saw the Lo3 MLG episode without having previous knowledge of wheat, scoots, and slasher, it would be a terrible first impression based on the environment alone.
This isnt a "Shame on you" post, but I would really like to hear why the Live on Three cast decided to cast in that room at that time. Especially when starcraft 2 is growing at the rate that it is. We are really nearing the cusp of blowing up the US esports scene. I think we, as a community, really need to be on our best behavior.
I understand the fact that wheat is providing a free service, but it is a very popular free service. There are only a couple of personalities that stick out when I think of starcraft 2: Day9, Wheat, JP, Artosis, and Tasteless. Those are really the "faces" of SC2 right now. These are the faces that promote SC2 outside our community. Why negatively impact someones view on SC2, and esports in general, by the setting of a live show?
Also @iNcontroL. I had no idea you were ever apart of the IN clan. I am great friends with INcin from the war2 days and we are poker pals. I always find it quite funny when I read/hear about the IN clan in recent times. INcin was a beast war2 player and it is absolutely hilarious playing starcraft 2 with him because he is so damn awful. :D
I think that a potential investor would more likely make his or her judgment based on large events such as MLG, where professionalism is essential.
In his blog post response to this, Wheat points out that he has had tons of success while skirting the line between what is professional or not because he knows there is a time and place to act professionally.
While sc2 is growing quickly, to think that a major broadcasting company like ESPN would be seriously considering e-sports is a bit optimistic.The goal for esports right now should be to continue to expand its community. As the community grows, it will begin to attract bigger and bigger sponsors. Until I see IdrA in a Nike commercial or Kellogg's TL-O's cereal, I don't think a stream of a (relatively tame) party will be a problem. In fact, it was great to see the players and community figures just hang out and act like human beings. I would have never considered it before, but watching the Lo3 stream convinced me to try to make it to MLG Orlando when the circuit begins next year.
|
I was using ESPN as an example.
As I said, I LOVED the stream and made me wish I wasn't a broke SOB so I could attend events, but when you are the face of a community, you really have to watch your content. Being edgy and riding the line of professionalism is fine; however, having a show at a party like that is a bit too much, imo.
I think it would have been much better if it didnt have the "Live on Three" stamp on it. Much like how day9 has the pre and post shows to his dailies, this could have just been an extension without any formal stamp on it.
|
I would agree with you that it should not have been an "official" show if it were any show other than Lo3, where the motto is "no fluff" and Wheat delivered just that.
It is unfortunate, though that the setting was distracting (the beer pong yelling in the background) and might have turned off some people because the interviews were great.
|
The problem is the double-elimination format, not the "extended series" thing (which has reasonable arguments for and against).
I would prefer a format where Day 1 and 2 consist of round-robin pools, and your performance in the pool matches dictates Day 3 seeding in an 16-player bracket. Something like 8 pools, top 2 from each move on to the seeded Day 3 bracket.
So that's 7 matches (Bo3) over two days for each player, then up to 4 (Bo3 until quarters or semis, then Bo5 and Bo7 finals) more on the last day. If you wanted to make things more interesting, you have the top player from each pool get seeded in to the final-day tournament and have the #2 and #3 players play a Bo3 to get in to the final day or even have them play a cross-pool match to get seeded into the bracket, with the first place finisher from each pool getting a bye that round.
Reasons this is better than double-elimination:
Each player gets more matches to prove how good they are, and each player has to beat other players seeded in their pool to advance. You can't get by on easy matches because there were upsets in front of you. Also, at any point in the day, you'll have good matchups. They can schedule it so that the 1v2, 2v3, 1v3, etc. match-ups in each pool are staggered so that the casters can always be on a relatively good game; no silly first-round stomps.
And of course, the finals can actually be a Bo5 or Bo7 instead of an extended series that we hope might get extended one more time or whatever the BS is. Pool play is pool play, and the finals is finals.
Reasons this might be worse than double-elimination:
Many more games means more computers might be required. I'm not sure how many extra, but this format will certainly require more games than the double-elimination. It won't matter as much in the early rounds (since everyone is playing in both formats), but when you've eliminated, say, half the players in double-elimination, you'll still be going with the full compliment in the format I'm proposing.
Logistically it might also be tougher, since the games will almost certainly not be of uniform length. You'll need the admins to keep everything running so players don't have excessive downtime. Still, I think if you keep things flexible, it should be workable. After all, in each pool you've only got to keep track of 8 gamers.
Anyhow, those are my thoughts on the issue. In retrospect, this may not have been the right thread to post this, but people seem to like talking about this stuff here, so what the hell.
|
Jp levelled up his host skillz this cast. Great job as always guys, keep it up!
|
Maybe I interpreted Tyler's argument incorrectly, but the point that it's unfair for the lesser player to continue on instead of the better player after a total of two bo3s (the first one that knocked better player to the loser's bracket and the second one being their bo3 within the loser's bracket) is resolved by having another bo3 (for a total of three bo3s aka extended series) does not solve the "unfair" aspect for the better player.
For instance, A wins 2-0 against B. In the loser's bracket, they play another bo3 and B wins 2-1. A's total record is 3-2 against B, and B's total record is 2-3 against A. They play the third and final bo3 and B wins 2-1 again. Now A's total record is 4-4 against B, and B's record is 4-4 against A, but B still gets to move on even though their historical record is still even.
|
On November 12 2010 05:51 djcube wrote:
Maybe I interpreted Tyler's argument incorrectly, but the point that it's unfair for the lesser player to continue on instead of the better player after a total of two bo3s (the first one that knocked better player to the loser's bracket and the second one being their bo3 within the loser's bracket) is resolved by having another bo3 (for a total of three bo3s aka extended series) does not solve the "unfair" aspect for the better player.
For instance, A wins 2-0 against B. In the loser's bracket, they play another bo3 and B wins 2-1. A's total record is 3-2 against B, and B's total record is 2-3 against A. They play the third and final bo3 and B wins 2-1 again. Now A's total record is 4-4 against B, and B's record is 4-4 against A, but B still gets to move on even though their historical record is still even.
Did he really say the solution would be a 3rd Bo3?
I wasnt listening closely but as far as what I've heard he said he'd rather have a BO7 than two Bo3s.
|
I'm in love with idra now with the Black Company reference. Thanks for the great podcast, JP!
|
On November 12 2010 05:51 djcube wrote:
Maybe I interpreted Tyler's argument incorrectly, but the point that it's unfair for the lesser player to continue on instead of the better player after a total of two bo3s (the first one that knocked better player to the loser's bracket and the second one being their bo3 within the loser's bracket) is resolved by having another bo3 (for a total of three bo3s aka extended series) does not solve the "unfair" aspect for the better player.
For instance, A wins 2-0 against B. In the loser's bracket, they play another bo3 and B wins 2-1. A's total record is 3-2 against B, and B's total record is 2-3 against A. They play the third and final bo3 and B wins 2-1 again. Now A's total record is 4-4 against B, and B's record is 4-4 against A, but B still gets to move on even though their historical record is still even.
But if player B had decided to throw his game away to someone insignficant he could advance trough the looser bracket without fear of this rule. Extended series only applies if you have met before, or am i mistaken in that regard?
|
I don't think that's how extended series works. Extended series isn't 3 bo3s, it basically becomes a best of seven, with the previous games played already counting. So player A wins 2-0. When they next meet the record is 2-0, first to 4 wins moves on. It's impossible to have a tied amount of games and resolution.
Extended series seems completely fair to me. If the player behind in the extended series is truly the better player, then he should be able to come back and defeat his opponent, or he shouldn't have lost in the first place.
|
I posted this in the feedback thread, but i believe it's being more discussed here.
A lot has been mentioned about the extended series rule and it's benefits or detriments. In many games, determining the ordering of players often involves pitting players against each other in even fields and then determining the winner in a bo3,5 or 7. In the case of Halo 3, players begin on a map with no tactical advantage since almost all the maps are identical for all players. In chess this is the same way, so in order to determine the most accurate ranking of players, the extended rule makes 100% sense and provides a more accurate system since ordering does NOT matter.
However, SC2 is different. Not only do players play on different maps (which offer different advantages to each race), but each match is not equal as many games are not mirror matchups. In fact, in a bo3 series in SC2, players may have different strategies planned for each map and dependant on the situation. Maybe a player plays a standard game in g1, but then decides that if he wins, he will try to cheese the next game, but if he losses he will try a fast expand build.
In this way, starcraft 2 is different than most games. A player who typically wins many games and is highly rated, might not be as strong strategically when planning for a best of 3. Or in other words...order of games DOES matter.
This is why the extended series rule, although in theory puts players in the correct order, fails to do so for starcraft 2. If they truly want a more accurate system, then they should use something else like group stages or swiss, but these often require more games. As far as extended series goes though, it seems like most pros don't plan to win individual games, but to win the series as a whole. Some do this by simply playing a normal game for them every game and treat them differently, some implement strategic decisions like cheesing game 2 in order to get a mental advantage. This is why each series should be treated as a seperate game.
If they wished to use the extended series, the only way that would work is if in the bo3, they played a bo3 on each map to determine the better player on that map set and then get the overall winner by seeing who the winner was on the most set of maps.
Unlike chess or Halo, where there is usually a strict ordering of players, in sc2, the ordering is also highly dependent on the matchup and the map and the order. If a player is great a pvz, but sucks at everything else and happens to get pvz in almost every matchup in the tournament, then he will be ranked unusually high. In the case of MLG, there are 2 maps which are a hinderence towards zerg called steppes of war and kulas ravine, however, since players only got to choose one map to eliminate, many zerg found themselves in the uncomfortable position of player on one of these maps, giving them a huge disadvantage.
|
Okay I clearly misunderstood the rules than. For some reason I thought it was playing two bo3s in the loser's bracket after the initial bo3 (their first encounter).
|
Great episode, Incontrols laugh and Tyler's chill voice are really the highlights of the show.
Anyway, is there a YouTube video with a song that plays at the end of the show?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
