|
The problem with Tylers argument is that he treats the extended series like a single elimination tournament or showmatch. By that logic it would be absolutely unfair if they play 2:0&1:2 for a result of 3:2, yet the loser of the first match advances and the winner gets kicked out eventhough he won 3 games and I would agree with him but we're talking about double elimination with extended series and there he's wrong, because you have to look how it affects the whole tournament and not just the battle between these two players.
It isn't about beating 'a player', because you won't face most of the players and there is no gurantee that the strongest players are equally distributed across the bracket.
First round, first game ends 2:0. Player A advances and B goes to losers. Eventually they'll meet again and the extended series allows Player A to cheese/map pick the win with ease, but he deserves it because he's the better player or not? Let's see..
Player A has played 4 matches, 3 wins, 1 loss.
Player B has played 4 matches, 3 wins, 1 loss.
Wait? What?!
Both have exactly the same statistics, yet Player A is allowed to start this match 2:0 and needs to lose 4 times. But he has won 3 matches in the winners bracket, alright, cool, that totally makes sense..
Let's look at Player C..
He wins his first 3 matches and loses the 4th like Player A, but all his opponents were defeated in their losers bracket.
Player C has played 4 matches, 3 wins, 1 loss.
If he loses 2 games he's out, which means he's in the same spot as Player B, but he played as good as Player A! Why needs A to lose 4 games, but C only 2? Why does A get favored like that as the 'obviously better player' and C gets the stick?
Boy, if i were Player B/C I would be pissed, because A basically gets to cheese a "free advance of the luck". And it isn't just B&C every player that didn't get a extended series in their favor has a disadvantage compared to Player A. That just can't be right, especially when you consider that he needs to lose 3-4 games which is enough lead to cheese/all-in the match.
How can THAT be fair or actually make the final rating more accurate when probabilty indicates that all players of "type C" (or even "B level" scrubs) have a 50% higher chance to lose one of their loser rounds compared to players of "lucker type A". (I'm not a math major, let some other nerd calculate the probabilty of coin flips when you have to lose 2 or 4..  )
Conclusion:
The extend series only promotes cheese and doesn't make interesting games nor does it increase the accuracy of the final rating, because only a lucky player gets a huge advantage compared to everyone else and that makes the extended series NOT a valid tool that ensures the best players will rank high. In fact it actually makes the result worse, because of the possibilty of free advances through cheese&map picking.
Keep in mind that players of type B had time to think what went wrong in their first match and might have adjusted their play to beat the strategy of player A or they have better stamina and stay concentrated even late in the tournament day, but because player A gets this huge advantage they won't face in a straight up game (unless player A is dumb enough to play honest) and B gets eliminated by cheesy play.
Beating a player in a double elimination tournament means nothing outside the grand final. The only thing that matters is winning consistently over the duration of the tournament and not be dumb enough to lose 2 matches. (I guess that's the most important part^^)
|
51441 Posts
as an australian i approve of the league
|
what the fuck man, it's 1:00 am in the morning right here, I'm so freaking hungry right now and Day9 goes on a 5 minute ramble about eating pizza. I'M DYING T_T
and wtf, we need to see the contents of the chat they're writing in skype.
|
Are we still talking about extended series in tournament play? Jesus!
I'm changing the topic.
We're all fans of the show, and want to see it continue for a long time. How could/should SOTG actually make money? Let's brainstorm some ideas here.
For whatever reason, I find the idea that these guys do this for free a little depressing.
|
"The Little App Factory presents State of the Game". This has to be do-able, right?
|
On November 12 2010 08:43 Nienordir wrote:The problem with Tylers argument is that he treats the extended series like a single elimination tournament or showmatch. By that logic it would be absolutely unfair if they play 2:0&1:2 for a result of 3:2, yet the loser of the first match advances and the winner gets kicked out eventhough he won 3 games and I would agree with him but we're talking about double elimination with extended series and there he's wrong, because you have to look how it affects the whole tournament and not just the battle between these two players. It isn't about beating 'a player', because you won't face most of the players and there is no gurantee that the strongest players are equally distributed across the bracket. First round, first game ends 2:0. Player A advances and B goes to losers. Eventually they'll meet again and the extended series allows Player A to cheese/map pick the win with ease, but he deserves it because he's the better player or not? Let's see.. Player A has played 4 matches, 3 wins, 1 loss. Player B has played 4 matches, 3 wins, 1 loss. Wait? What?! Both have exactly the same statistics, yet Player A is allowed to start this match 2:0 and needs to lose 4 times. But he has won 3 matches in the winners bracket, alright, cool, that totally makes sense.. Let's look at Player C.. He wins his first 3 matches and loses the 4th like Player A, but all his opponents were defeated in their losers bracket. Player C has played 4 matches, 3 wins, 1 loss. If he loses 2 games he's out, which means he's in the same spot as Player B, but he played as good as Player A! Why needs A to lose 4 games, but C only 2? Why does A get favored like that as the 'obviously better player' and C gets the stick? Boy, if i were Player B/C I would be pissed, because A basically gets to cheese a "free advance of the luck". And it isn't just B&C every player that didn't get a extended series in their favor has a disadvantage compared to Player A. That just can't be right, especially when you consider that he needs to lose 3-4 games which is enough lead to cheese/all-in the match. How can THAT be fair or actually make the final rating more accurate when probabilty indicates that all players of "type C" (or even "B level" scrubs) have a 50% higher chance to lose one of their loser rounds compared to players of "lucker type A". (I'm not a math major, let some other nerd calculate the probabilty of coin flips when you have to lose 2 or 4.. ) Conclusion: The extend series only promotes cheese and doesn't make interesting games nor does it increase the accuracy of the final rating, because only a lucky player gets a huge advantage compared to everyone else and that makes the extended series NOT a valid tool that ensures the best players will rank high. In fact it actually makes the result worse, because of the possibilty of free advances through cheese&map picking. Keep in mind that players of type B had time to think what went wrong in their first match and might have adjusted their play to beat the strategy of player A or they have better stamina and stay concentrated even late in the tournament day, but because player A gets this huge advantage they won't face in a straight up game (unless player A is dumb enough to play honest) and B gets eliminated by cheesy play. Beating a player in a double elimination tournament means nothing outside the grand final. The only thing that matters is winning consistently over the duration of the tournament and not be dumb enough to lose 2 matches. (I guess that's the most important part^^)
You guys are completely missing the point.
A series exist in order to determine who is the better player between two of us.
What I posted earlier: How one guy played others have no bearing between determining the skill between you and me, because it is possible in reality for A player to be better than B, B to be better than C, but C has better chance against A. Rock paper scissors anyone?
Tyler is making a point that MLG adopted this "extended series" rule in order to make the double elimination format fairer between 2 players.
In other words, MLG put some thought into the system and decided it was unfair to have 2 isolated bo3, which is completely reasonable line of thought.
What most people, completely skewing the point, are saying is what mlg is doing is not how double elimination tournaments supposed to work. You are exactly right, MLG skewed the rule in order to make contest between any given 2 players fairer.
We play a series to determine which one of us is better out of the two. If you think logically then, If we play 2 isolated Bo3 and you win 1 and I win the other, we're tied 1-1 according to the system.
BUT, guy who wins the later series gets to advance because....?
You say it isn't an extension of previous Bo3, and you can't name the exact reason why. This is precisely because people are too caught up with how tournaments work and refuse to think about fairness of the actual system itself.
Tell me, why is the game played later is of more significance than the game played before?
Extended series basically gets rid of this bias in that when the game gets played does not matter, because 1 additional potential game gets played, in event of (2-0) (0-2) situation, in order to truely determine who is the better player between two of us.
Now hopefully you understand the TRUE point of the argument, the question is then whether you agree with the decision to make contest between 2 player fairer at the cost of how it feels the bracket should work.
|
On November 11 2010 11:46 scion wrote:
2) If I beat you 2-0 earlier and you beat me 0-2 in losers, we're at 2-2 in this tournament. But you get to advance and I get eliminated because order we played the game in.
Actually you get eliminated because you also lost to someone else, and the other guy didn't. :p
edit: As for why that matters, I think other matches in the tourney do matter. The overall "better" player will not be determined by any number of games in a 1v1, due to different matchup skills and the rock paper scissors thing you mentioned above. Just (hopefully) the better of the two in the matchup at hand. Suppose Casy plays Nada. Casy may be better at TvT at the time, but he will auto-lose to any P. Is he really the better player? Is it better for the tourney if he advances?
I just hope they fill the loser's bracket in such a way that rematches are least likely to occur (which I think they do). The point of double elim is that you can't get knocked out entirely by just one player.
I don't really mind the extended series that much (apart from it compounding the ref mistake that hurt Nony :p), but for reasons I can't quite put into words I think the imperfection of the tourney format (too much luck involved from brackets/matchups/maps/spawns/risky builds/whatever, better player not always winning, etc) makes it pointless at best. Also, people play a bo3 with a bo3 in mind; it affects their strats. Later extending it to a bo7 (and starting on a random map, not loser-picks) does weird things to the metagame.
I really don't like that the rematch rule negate the WB advantage in the finals though. =/
|
[exhale]
I think I check this thread sometime next week when this fascinating debate on double-elimination tournament rules and regulations ends.
|
|
|
I think Tyler needs to accept his losses and stop whining about a trivial mistake, it's getting redundant at this point because I've heard/seen him bring it up at least 3 different times now.
|
Australia7069 Posts
what like when people ask him about it?....rofl dude if anything tyler has been really chilled about it. Thats uncalled for
|
On November 12 2010 11:39 tyrless wrote:
I think Tyler needs to accept his losses and stop whining about a trivial mistake, it's getting redundant at this point because I've heard/seen him bring it up at least 3 different times now.
Rofl, what are you talking about?
People have been upset about the map mistake obviously, but Tyler has hardly talked about it, let alone complained at all. However he would have had reason to, given the fact that lots of other people played on wrong maps at the same time yet their matches were not stopped and that Tyler triple-checked with admins.
Anyway, the mistake is not even what is being discussed in this topic, it is the extended series rule.
|
On November 12 2010 11:39 tyrless wrote:
I think Tyler needs to accept his losses and stop whining about a trivial mistake, it's getting redundant at this point because I've heard/seen him bring it up at least 3 different times now.
I don't think you even read/listen to tyler... He supported the extended series rule, even though it caused him to get knocked out. How is that not "accepting his losses"?
|
8748 Posts
On November 12 2010 11:39 tyrless wrote:
I think Tyler needs to accept his losses and stop whining about a trivial mistake, it's getting redundant at this point because I've heard/seen him bring it up at least 3 different times now.
What is this about? My loss to painuser and MLG's mistake about the map? I accepted that he outplayed me at MLG Dallas, both when he beat me in the bo3 and when he beat me in the bo7, and I've given him tons of props for it. I've also said that MLG does a great job 99% of the time and I'm not going to make a big deal out of them making a single mistake.
You really shouldn't count how many times I say something to gauge how I feel about it. When something controversial happens at MLG, I'm probably going to have to talk about it in several interviews after the event, I'll probably make at least a few posts about it on TL, and I'm definitely going to talk about it on SotG. No matter what happens, and no matter what my opinion is on it, you're gonna hear me repeat something a million times if you keep up w/ all that stuff.
|
Quit whining Tyler. Gawd.
|
Nony, where can I find this NPR interview with you?
|
I'll repeat what I said in the Statistical analysis thread:
Nienordir and scion are arguing for two different formats based on two different conceptions of what the tournament should accomplish. Nienordir believes that you as a player are playing against the field and appeals to idrA's 'two separate occurences' theory. scion believes that a tournament is won by a series of head-to-head matchups, and therefore the player should be rewarded for taking an earlier set. If you decide on that, then I think the solution is obvious.
|
@Liquid'Tyler
Just wanted to give you mad props about your discussion about the extended series rule on the last state of the game. Very well thought out and especially cool considering you were recently effected by the rule.
|
On November 12 2010 12:13 Avenan wrote:
@Liquid'Tyler
Just wanted to give you mad props about your discussion about the extended series rule on the last state of the game. Very well thought out and especially cool considering you were recently effected by the rule.
Agree, I really had no opinion on the matter, but you just blew up the whole argument in a way I don't think we'd have seen with just idrA and iNControl's comments (no disrespect to them).
|
On November 12 2010 11:21 SonuvBob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 11:46 scion wrote:
2) If I beat you 2-0 earlier and you beat me 0-2 in losers, we're at 2-2 in this tournament. But you get to advance and I get eliminated because order we played the game in. Actually you get eliminated because you also lost to someone else, and the other guy didn't. :p edit: As for why that matters, I think other matches in the tourney do matter. The overall "better" player will not be determined by any number of games in a 1v1, due to different matchup skills and the rock paper scissors thing you mentioned above. Just (hopefully) the better of the two in the matchup at hand. Suppose Casy plays Nada. Casy may be better at TvT at the time, but he will auto-lose to any P. Is he really the better player? Is it better for the tourney if he advances?
Well I think its perfectly valid argument to say you get eliminated at later game because you lost twice in the tournament and I lost only once.
Problem is most people didn't seem to understand why extended series can be considered a fairer arrangement between any given 2 players. It's just different way of looking at fairness. I don't think its appropriate for people to argue their position when they don't fully grasp the other side of the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
