|
On December 02 2010 00:39 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 00:32 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On December 02 2010 00:13 Siffer wrote:
RE: Extended Series.
Lower bracket should be considered a separate tournament from Upper bracket. You get knocked out of one tournament and get placed in another.
At least that is how I have viewed it for the past 10 years I have played CS, WC3, and SC2. Ugh I can't believe I keep getting drawn back into commenting about extended series... but like, your view blows my mind. They're 2 different tournaments? At the same event, with the same players, competing for the same prize money and ranking, with structures logically linked together, etc... I can't fathom how you can see a double elim competition as having 2 separate tournaments going on. The view that tournaments have a memory of a player's performance is actually shared by both sides of this debate. Both views recognize that a tournament remembers that a player has won or lost rounds because that is essential to a bracket. The extended series view wants to remember another thing: which players a player wins or loses against. There is no debate that if you care about who you've had to face, then playing one bo7 is better than playing 2 bo3's. (Winning the first bo3 and losing the second bo3 should obviously be regarded as an even performance between those players, but one player gets eliminated and the other goes on. No reason has been discovered for weighting the second bo3 more. Attempts at it have been mere restatements of the fundamental position of those opposed to extended series.) What confuses me is that everyone judges a player's path through the bracket based on who he has had to play, judging more difficult paths as greater accomplishments, and yet they do not want a tournament structure that utilizes that wisdom in order to improve its ability to advance the better player. If we as subjective judges of tournament performance find memory of the identities of a player's opponents valuable, and we have one small way of implementing this information into an objective format, then why not use it? But in the podcast you argue that there is a tournament performance, not just a series of show matches, but extended series is not helping judge tournament performance, it's helping judge the performance between those 2 players. If someone wins the first bo3 and loses the second bo3, yes it's an even performance, but only in the games played between those two individuals. In terms of tournament performance, one of those players has lost more series than the other guy, and he goes out.
And a tournament performance is made up of a bunch of individual performances. Normally in a double-elimination tournament you've lost to two people, which is a more or less reasonable criterion for getting eliminated. Since it occasionally happens that the second "person" you might get knocked out by is the same person who gave you your first loss, you might as well make sure that you really are worse than them (or you really are better, if you start winning) because the entire point is to make sure that the better player moves on. If time weren't an issue, EVERY round could be played as a bo7. But since the idea is to save time we need to play bo3s. But if two players play each other twice, and each win one bo3, then it's unclear which player is actually better since they're even in series. Instead, if you just play an extended series, then whoever takes the most games against his opponent ends up moving on.
It might be convenient to think that each series should be its own isolated event because it feels symmetrical and organized, but the reality is that there's no reason for this to be the case. It's really a “just because” argument. Of course, without a REASON to deviate from each series being isolated, you shouldn't do it, but the reason is readily apparent. Treating each series as its own isolated event occasionally creates a contradiction (two players are tied in record but one advances and the other doesn't), and that's all the calling you need to create a special rule for it.
The point is, you can't run a perfect tournament, but there's no reason to not to try to get as accurate a result as time allows. With the extended series, your 1v1 records never contradict the actual results of the tournament.
|
About the Story about the player stuff...
I say give the game some time. Its a new game right? Its kinda hard to get attached to people a few months after the game got released. Im sure we will get our Flashes and Jeadongs and Bisus and all that for SC2 as well in the future. Just give it some time.
|
I feel as though the extended series ruins the credibility of the tournament.
The tournament should be designed as to be as fair and consistent as possible to all players - the extended series rules creates situations where you can have a ridiculously easy/different path through the brackets i.e. beat 3 players - lose - by chance be matched up with the same 3 players in the losers bracket. Anything that can make the tournament more "random" should be excluded.
Keep in mind Bo7 is not extended series and you should not keep referring to it as such - map pools get refreshed and you've probably played lots of games in between.
I think what alot of people are underestimating how huge the advantage the winner gets. Imagine this a player A with avgerage 80% win rate vs player B on all maps.
In a regular Bo3
BO3
A2-B0 = 64%
A2-B1 = 24.6%
A1-B2 = 6.4%
A0-B2 = 4%
B wins 10.4%
Extended Series if B wins A1-B2
A1-B4 = 4%
A2-B4 = 6.4%
A3-B4 - 7.68%
B Wins 18.08%
Extended Series if B wins A0-B2
A0-B4 = 4%
A1-B4 = 6.4%
A2-B4 = 7.68%
A3-B4 = 8.192%
B wins 26.272%
Basically if B wins and happens to play A again in the losers bracket - he will have almost or well over double the chance to proceed that particular round over if he didn't happen to play A or compared to other players in the tournament who don't get a similar chance to play extended series.
It's entirely possibly a player could player multiple extended series and if it did happen it would be a total joke of a tournament and any results are laughable when a player gets a significantly easier time because of this particular rule.
edit: it gets more ridiculous if you use different numbers e.g. players who are 50-50
|
On December 02 2010 00:32 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 00:13 Siffer wrote:
RE: Extended Series.
Lower bracket should be considered a separate tournament from Upper bracket. You get knocked out of one tournament and get placed in another.
At least that is how I have viewed it for the past 10 years I have played CS, WC3, and SC2. Ugh I can't believe I keep getting drawn back into commenting about extended series... but like, your view blows my mind. They're 2 different tournaments? At the same event, with the same players, competing for the same prize money and ranking, with structures logically linked together, etc... I can't fathom how you can see a double elim competition as having 2 separate tournaments going on. The view that tournaments have a memory of a player's performance is actually shared by both sides of this debate. Both views recognize that a tournament remembers that a player has won or lost rounds because that is essential to a bracket. The extended series view wants to remember another thing: which players a player wins or loses against. There is no debate that if you care about who you've had to face, then playing one bo7 is better than playing 2 bo3's. (Winning the first bo3 and losing the second bo3 should obviously be regarded as an even performance between those players, but one player gets eliminated and the other goes on. No reason has been discovered for weighting the second bo3 more. Attempts at it have been mere restatements of the fundamental position of those opposed to extended series.) What confuses me is that everyone judges a player's path through the bracket based on who he has had to play, judging more difficult paths as greater accomplishments, and yet they do not want a tournament structure that utilizes that wisdom in order to improve its ability to advance the better player. If we as subjective judges of tournament performance find memory of the identities of a player's opponents valuable, and we have one small way of implementing this information into an objective format, then why not use it?
if you played other games which traditionally use upper bracket-lower bracket tournament formats you would realize how inept the idea behind the extended series is. it dilutes the functionality (and clarity) of the event and takes away a great deal of interest and wonder. does it really make sense for a baseball or basketball team to have an advantage over another because they beat them once before?
btw ive never watched the show
|
I just want to apologise on behalf of all the Swedish people on the Earth for "That announcer guy" and we're sorry for shaming ourselves to that extent and I feel deeply shamed as a Swede that he exists... though it was pretty funny and we got to hear Incontrol rant about him, YAY :D
|
8748 Posts
On December 02 2010 01:17 StUfF wrote:
Keep in mind Bo7 is not extended series and you should not keep referring to it as such - map pools get refreshed and you've probably played lots of games in between.
Map pool doesn't get refreshed. Whoever lost in the last game gets to pick the next map and can't pick maps that were already played.
|
should have mentioned how all the MLG finals were lackluster and lacked the sort of 'epic' feel to it
|
8748 Posts
On December 02 2010 01:18 SpiriTofAaekA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 00:32 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On December 02 2010 00:13 Siffer wrote:
RE: Extended Series.
Lower bracket should be considered a separate tournament from Upper bracket. You get knocked out of one tournament and get placed in another.
At least that is how I have viewed it for the past 10 years I have played CS, WC3, and SC2. Ugh I can't believe I keep getting drawn back into commenting about extended series... but like, your view blows my mind. They're 2 different tournaments? At the same event, with the same players, competing for the same prize money and ranking, with structures logically linked together, etc... I can't fathom how you can see a double elim competition as having 2 separate tournaments going on. The view that tournaments have a memory of a player's performance is actually shared by both sides of this debate. Both views recognize that a tournament remembers that a player has won or lost rounds because that is essential to a bracket. The extended series view wants to remember another thing: which players a player wins or loses against. There is no debate that if you care about who you've had to face, then playing one bo7 is better than playing 2 bo3's. (Winning the first bo3 and losing the second bo3 should obviously be regarded as an even performance between those players, but one player gets eliminated and the other goes on. No reason has been discovered for weighting the second bo3 more. Attempts at it have been mere restatements of the fundamental position of those opposed to extended series.) What confuses me is that everyone judges a player's path through the bracket based on who he has had to play, judging more difficult paths as greater accomplishments, and yet they do not want a tournament structure that utilizes that wisdom in order to improve its ability to advance the better player. If we as subjective judges of tournament performance find memory of the identities of a player's opponents valuable, and we have one small way of implementing this information into an objective format, then why not use it? if you played other games which traditionally use upper bracket-lower bracket tournament formats you would realize how inept the idea behind the extended series is. it dilutes the functionality (and clarity) of the event and takes away a great deal of interest and wonder. does it really make sense for a baseball or basketball team to have an advantage over another because they beat them once before? btw ive never watched the show
Yes extended series do make sense, but you are right that they're less clear to spectators because the SC fans are unfamiliar with them and/or because they simply aren't smart enough (or haven't tried hard enough) to understand their purpose and why they're an improvement. If everyone was used to them, or if everyone understood the improvement they make, we wouldn't have a problem. But that's not the case. Therefore it might be best to compromise extended series for the sake of clarity.
|
On December 02 2010 01:17 StUfF wrote:
I feel as though the extended series ruins the credibility of the tournament... *snip* ...Basically if B wins and happens to play A again in the losers bracket - he will have almost or well over double the chance to proceed that particular round over if he didn't happen to play A or compared to other players in the tournament who don't get a similar chance to play extended series.
It's entirely possibly a player could player multiple extended series and if it did happen it would be a total joke of a tournament and any results are laughable when a player gets a significantly easier time because of this particular rule.
edit: it gets more ridiculous if you use different numbers e.g. players who are 50-50
It'd be more laughable if A then beat B in the losers' bracket, and despite being tied B was eliminated.
I think what it comes down to is a fundamental difference in perceiving what a tournament is supposed to do. When you lose in the winners' bracket and get dropped down, there's no intent of "punishing" you. That's just how the tournament is run. So when the situation for the extended series comes up, all this talking of "punishing" and "isolated series" makes perfect sense to some people and to others it seems like blindly adhering to an arbitrary rule set. Ultimately, the purpose of a tournament (no matter how well or poorly it does so) is to determine the best players. In any given round, you want the better player to move on. The extended series helps assure that between two players, the one that is better moves on. That's really the entire logic behind it and it WORKS (statistically) for this purpose.
|
On December 02 2010 00:39 IdrA wrote:
but as long as both players are in the losers bracket, both have lost matches. the initial winner has lost to someone that the initial loser hasn't, while the initial loser has gone undefeated against more opponents than the winner. the loser already dealt with his earned disadvantage, which was having to get through the loser bracket. its not fair to give it back to him because he happened to run into the same guy again.
Quoted for truth. If I lose to A and A loses to B, but I would have absolutely destroyed B after going through the whole lower bracket consisting of C I should not have a disadvantage to A.
Formulaic version :
A>X, X>B, B>A, X>C
X should therefore not be penalized against A.
|
For a spectator, games/matchups run continually one after another. While spectators will often follow a player, I doubt they are too interested in the overall standing between two players (this would at least be the case for me, unless we were talking about f.ex. Tyler vs Idra or something). They will be more interested in having a 'static' format to the tournament as a whole based on how far along it currently is; bo 3, bo 5, whatever.
I don't know, that is the feeling I have as a spectator, but I definitely understand that (some) players may feel otherwise and what many spectators feel is not necessarily the absolute number one concern.
Personally I think it is more of an issue that there even is "best of" 1 format in certain tournaments, that shouldn't be the case at all.
|
About Tylers comment about MaNas skillevel: Did you guys see MorroW vs MaNa. It was by far the worst series I´ve seen Ever. Worse than some shit Jaehoon did in Broodwar becouse that was pretty funny and you felt kinda sad for him for being so nervous but MaNa vs MorroW... Seriously... It´s up on Day9s archive, you have to see it to get it. I was one of the guys in the crowd and we were a gang who sat there talking throughout that entire series and did really think for a moment that that game was a joke.
|
8748 Posts
On December 02 2010 01:39 absalom86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 00:39 IdrA wrote:
but as long as both players are in the losers bracket, both have lost matches. the initial winner has lost to someone that the initial loser hasn't, while the initial loser has gone undefeated against more opponents than the winner. the loser already dealt with his earned disadvantage, which was having to get through the loser bracket. its not fair to give it back to him because he happened to run into the same guy again. Quoted for truth. If I lose to A and A loses to B, but I would have absolutely destroyed B after going through the whole lower bracket consisting of C I should not have a disadvantage to A. Formulaic version : A>X, X>B, B>A, X>C X should therefore not be penalized against A.
i dont think idra's objection is the fault of extended series. his objection is an inherent problem with brackets and double elim brackets. the guy is getting screwed before extended series are put into the picture. he has to play all those extra rounds because of the luck of the draw. brackets can't solve the problem of this A>B, B>C, C>A situation. if A and B have to play in first round, B got screwed by the bracket.
you can't create that situation and combine it with a situation involving extended series and then blame it on extended series. they are not related.
|
8748 Posts
On December 02 2010 01:42 Sl4ktarN wrote:
About Tylers comment about MaNas skillevel: Did you guys see MorroW vs MaNa. It was by far the worst series I´ve seen Ever. Worse than some shit Jaehoon did in Broodwar becouse that was pretty funny and you felt kinda sad for him for being so nervous but MaNa vs MorroW... Seriously... It´s up on Day9s archive, you have to see it to get it. I was one of the guys in the crowd and we were a gang who sat there talking throughout that entire series and did really think for a moment that that game was a joke.
I didn't see it =[
|
On December 01 2010 22:44 HwangjaeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 22:26 Grettin wrote:
The finnish poem was so well read that i didn't understand a word! Yeah, InControl totally nailed that. Meaning he talked better finnish than me cos I didn't understand a single syllable of that poem. And I've lived among finns for 20 something years. Sorry Geoff but Day[9] was so much better in one of his funsies.
In Day[9] daily 188 FundayMonday with Carriers in the beginning of the first replay Sean reads out loud the finnish chat with pretty good pronounciation, you can take lesson from him. You are really baller to read that poem anyway.
Also a bit longer interview with Naama is translated here:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=172845
|
I agree with Tyler regarding extended series.
I have yet to hear a really good actual argument against them.
It does make sense. The best player should go through. If you win 2-0 first and then face the same player and lose 1-2; then you've just been eliminated against a player whom you've got 3-2 against. That does not make sense.
Extended series doesn't punish any side. It just rewards the player who is actually better. If he lost 0-2, then he has the real best of 5 (or 7 or w-ever) series to set the record straight. If he can't do that then the other player should move through.
|
I think the Extended Series just too harsh. It'd be fine in a round robin environment, but in double elimination, it's just very difficult... your opponent just has to get 2 wins in 5 games, you have to get as 3 or even 4 wins in 5 games... I think, I'd prefer a best of 6 with your opponent starting up 1. That way, if you lost 2-0 before, you actually have a chance.
|
On December 02 2010 02:03 ParasitJonte wrote:
I agree with Tyler regarding extended series.
I have yet to hear a really good actual argument against them.
It does make sense. The best player should go through. If you win 2-0 first and then face the same player and lose 1-2; then you've just been eliminated against a player whom you've got 3-2 against. That does not make sense.
Extended series doesn't punish any side. It just rewards the player who is actually better. If he lost 0-2, then he has the real best of 5 (or 7 or w-ever) series to set the record straight. If he can't do that then the other player should move through.
Hello team liquid! I have a simple explanation for what I feel is the downfall of the extended series.
In the losers brackets all players have dropped a series 2-0 or 2-1. When two players who meet in the upper bracket meet again in the lower bracket the winner of the first match receives an astronomical advantage of leading a Bo7 (correct me if this is wrong) 2-1 or even 2-0. With both players having a lost series (one just happens to be against the competitor with which the match is beginning) why should 1 player win 2 games to advance and the other 3-4 games to advance? They have equally faltered yet one is punished? This is the problem with the extended series rule.
The extended series however is perfectly effective in the grand finals only, which is of course intuitive.
Edit: sorry if this argument has been used in the discussion already I have a hard time keeping up with all 304 pages of this thread but I try my best!
|
On December 02 2010 01:55 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 01:39 absalom86 wrote:On December 02 2010 00:39 IdrA wrote:
but as long as both players are in the losers bracket, both have lost matches. the initial winner has lost to someone that the initial loser hasn't, while the initial loser has gone undefeated against more opponents than the winner. the loser already dealt with his earned disadvantage, which was having to get through the loser bracket. its not fair to give it back to him because he happened to run into the same guy again. Quoted for truth. If I lose to A and A loses to B, but I would have absolutely destroyed B after going through the whole lower bracket consisting of C I should not have a disadvantage to A. Formulaic version : A>X, X>B, B>A, X>C X should therefore not be penalized against A. i dont think idra's objection is the fault of extended series. his objection is an inherent problem with brackets and double elim brackets. the guy is getting screwed before extended series are put into the picture. he has to play all those extra rounds because of the luck of the draw. brackets can't solve the problem of this A>B, B>C, C>A situation. if A and B have to play in first round, B got screwed by the bracket. you can't create that situation and combine it with a situation involving extended series and then blame it on extended series. they are not related.
but extended series just exacerbates that problem. maybe a is better than b, but b is better than c while a loses to c, why does a then deserve an advantage over b? i dont see why the a>b should be weighted any more than the c>a. both lost a series to get to the loser bracket. once there it should be an even footing because of that.
|
On December 02 2010 02:03 ParasitJonte wrote:
I agree with Tyler regarding extended series.
I have yet to hear a really good actual argument against them.
It does make sense. The best player should go through. If you win 2-0 first and then face the same player and lose 1-2; then you've just been eliminated against a player whom you've got 3-2 against. That does not make sense.
Extended series doesn't punish any side. It just rewards the player who is actually better. If he lost 0-2, then he has the real best of 5 (or 7 or w-ever) series to set the record straight. If he can't do that then the other player should move through.
I have a feeling you didnt lissen to the podcast at all. Goeff explains it so well that it would just be a waste for me to put it down in words here. There is a reason to why barely no other tournament on the planet uses the Extanded series stuff. MLG isnt the only tournament who has "thought" about it, I can assure you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
