|
On October 17 2010 07:19 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:18 Brad` wrote:
In a world where fatigue and stamina have absolutely no effect on your performance I'm sure that playing twice as many series as another is equal footing. If Select wins this series I dont really care if he's at a 0-0 series with Idra when he had to win 11 series compared to Idra's 6. Pretty sure you missed the point. (Edit: But I might be mistaken, and just not be picking up on what you were trying to say.)
If Select storms through 11 players to get to finals, why should he start with a disadvantage against Idra? The system mlg uses gives you an advantage over players you've proven yourself better than by beating them.
Why should someone that loses to Idra in round 1 be punished more than someone who loses to Idra in the semi finals? Whats the difference? If those two players meet up later in the losers bracket why does one deserve an advantage? If you both lose to the same person does the fact that you got farther in the winners bracket really mean anything?
I don't agree with the rule but I dont see any way that it gives an advantage to either player.
|
On October 17 2010 07:29 Aim Here wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:07 travis wrote:
How can people argue that the rule isn't stupid as hell.
If you are in the losers bracket, and you play an opponent you haven't played before, you're on even footing. But if you are in the losers bracket and you play an opponent you lost to already, they start ahead. Even though YOU'VE BOTH DONE EQUALLY IN THE TOURNAMENT.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
Alternatively, consider what would happen if you had two unconnected bo3s. If you play in the first, and win 2-0 and then play in the second and lose 2-1, you have won 3 games against the same player, and they have only won 2 against you, yet you're considered the weaker player (because of the order in which you won/lost the games) and kicked out of the tournament. How is THAT fair?
To get into the losers bracket you had to lose to someone. There is no way to be in the position you describe without having lost in the winners bracket, just as the player you are playing against did. who you lose to doesn't matter... if you win a match you continue in tournament. if you lose you drop to losers bracket (a separate bracket), or you drop out of the tournament.
this is just dumb.. im done arguing it lol.
|
Sorry bout my scattered posts, I'm trying to watch the matches, and type :D.. I think that Aim Here's description kind of hit's it spot on how I feel, was just not paying enough attention to what I was posting and what you were trying to say..
If you're unlucky and meet the same person (who's much better than you) twice, then you should have an even harder time of advancing than you would in a normal double-elimination format.
I think Aim Here kind of clarifies why MLG does it the way they do.. and that's my position.. of course you can disagree with it.. there isn't a BEST way to do this, you might prefer single elimination.. that's just not what I like personally.
Also, the Championship match being reversed... this is because you have already started a match, there was a HUGE discussion about why this was changed to this, but pretty much.. they like the whole continuing series idea. Also.. I kind of consider starting up a game a pretty huge advantage, not only do you have to win less than your opponent, but just the mental advantage of knowing you are a game or two up... just helps a lot..
|
On October 17 2010 07:37 Brad` wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:19 Pyrthas wrote:On October 17 2010 07:18 Brad` wrote:
In a world where fatigue and stamina have absolutely no effect on your performance I'm sure that playing twice as many series as another is equal footing. If Select wins this series I dont really care if he's at a 0-0 series with Idra when he had to win 11 series compared to Idra's 6. Pretty sure you missed the point. (Edit: But I might be mistaken, and just not be picking up on what you were trying to say.) If Select storms through 11 players to get to finals, why should he start with a disadvantage against Idra? The system mlg uses gives you an advantage over players you've proven yourself better than by beating them. Why should someone that loses to Idra in round 1 be punished more than someone who loses to to Idra in the semi finals? Whats the difference? If those two players meet up later in the losers bracket why does one deserve an advantage? If you both lose to the same person does the fact that you got farther in the winners bracket really mean anything? I don't agree with the rule but I dont see any way that it gives an advantage to either player. Yup, definitely sure you missed the point now. I'm guessing that you are referring to the first point in my post. Reread the official rule 7. (It basically says, "In the grand final, if the players haven't met earlier in the tournament, then it plays the way a double-elimination bracket normally plays, with the WB player needing to win one bo3 and the LB player needing to win 2.")
Edit:
On October 17 2010 07:38 BraveGhost wrote:
Also, the Championship match being reversed... this is because you have already started a match, there was a HUGE discussion about why this was changed to this, but pretty much.. they like the whole continuing series idea. Also.. I kind of consider starting up a game a pretty huge advantage, not only do you have to win less than your opponent, but just the mental advantage of knowing you are a game or two up... just helps a lot..
My point is that if you are coming from WB into the grand final and you face someone you previously faced, then you might have less of an advantage than you will have if you face someone you haven't previously faced. (This will happen if you won your previous meeting 2-1, rather than 2-0.)
Here are the three possible cases for the grand finals as I understand the rules (I could be misunderstanding them):
- WB player and LB player have not played earlier. Then WB player needs to win one bo3 and LB player has to win two bo3s (per rule 7). This is the standard double-elimination rule.
- WB player beat LB player 2-0 earlier in the tournament. Then WB player needs to win 2 games and LB player needs to win 4 games. (This makes it slightly harder for the LB player to win than in the first case, as has been explained before in this thread.)
- WB player beat LB player 2-1 earlier in the tournament. Then WB player needs to win 2 games and LB player needs to win 3 games. (This makes it much easier for the LB player to win than in the first case, for obvious reasons.)
Put another way: If the WB player beat the LB player 2-1 earlier in the tournament, the WB player has a significantly smaller advantage than he or she would have in a standard double-elimination tournament. (And if the WB player beat the LB player 2-0, he or she has a slightly larger advantage.)
Edit again:
As for the other discussion, about the merits of MLG's system in non-finals matches, I'm with travis, and I'm not convinced that there's a need to put people in LB at an even greater disadvantage when they've already faced their opponent once, but I can understand your (BraveGhost's and Aim Here's) position. Probably not much more to say there. Thanks for explaining it.
|
On October 17 2010 07:37 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:29 Aim Here wrote:On October 17 2010 07:07 travis wrote:
How can people argue that the rule isn't stupid as hell.
If you are in the losers bracket, and you play an opponent you haven't played before, you're on even footing. But if you are in the losers bracket and you play an opponent you lost to already, they start ahead. Even though YOU'VE BOTH DONE EQUALLY IN THE TOURNAMENT.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
Alternatively, consider what would happen if you had two unconnected bo3s. If you play in the first, and win 2-0 and then play in the second and lose 2-1, you have won 3 games against the same player, and they have only won 2 against you, yet you're considered the weaker player (because of the order in which you won/lost the games) and kicked out of the tournament. How is THAT fair? To get into the losers bracket you had to lose to someone. There is no way to be in the position you describe without having lost in the winners bracket, just as the player you are playing against did. who you lose to doesn't matter... if you win a match you continue in tournament. if you lose you drop to losers bracket (a separate bracket), or you drop out of the tournament. this is just dumb.. im done arguing it lol.
Sure you've both done equally well in the tournament, but the point of a bracket is to position players relative to others. If you lost to the other player before, then technically I think the disadvantage given to the player that's lost a set is fair.
When I played brawl at MLG a good player unfortunately had to play me in winners first round, and then he had to play me again as soon as I ended up in loser bracket. In MOST tournaments they simply start over with another BO3 but the MLG spin is pretty legit IMO. Usually the player that won previously wins anyway, but the set is a lot more intense and does allow for flukes to fix themselves. It also punishes inconsistent play.
|
This funky format gives the player who the winners bracket the same chances as the person who won the losers bracket. What if the WB winner has his 2 bad games in the grand finals, he doesn't get that safety net that the LB winner got.
|
On October 17 2010 07:49 Anther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:37 travis wrote:On October 17 2010 07:29 Aim Here wrote:On October 17 2010 07:07 travis wrote:
How can people argue that the rule isn't stupid as hell.
If you are in the losers bracket, and you play an opponent you haven't played before, you're on even footing. But if you are in the losers bracket and you play an opponent you lost to already, they start ahead. Even though YOU'VE BOTH DONE EQUALLY IN THE TOURNAMENT.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
Alternatively, consider what would happen if you had two unconnected bo3s. If you play in the first, and win 2-0 and then play in the second and lose 2-1, you have won 3 games against the same player, and they have only won 2 against you, yet you're considered the weaker player (because of the order in which you won/lost the games) and kicked out of the tournament. How is THAT fair? To get into the losers bracket you had to lose to someone. There is no way to be in the position you describe without having lost in the winners bracket, just as the player you are playing against did. who you lose to doesn't matter... if you win a match you continue in tournament. if you lose you drop to losers bracket (a separate bracket), or you drop out of the tournament. this is just dumb.. im done arguing it lol. Sure you've both done equally well in the tournament, but the point of a bracket is to position players relative to others. If you lost to the other player before, then technically I think the disadvantage given to the player that's lost a set is fair.
i go 8-2 in a tournament losing to you in the first round (0-2)
you go 8-2, losing in the 2nd round (0-2)
we play each other in the losers bracket
we've both gone 8-2
hell, you lost to someone ive beaten a million times and im sure i would have beaten if i had played
but now we play each other and you are 2 games ahead
this is fair HOW? we've both done EQUALLY WELL in the tournament. and if i had played someone that just got eliminated from the winners bracket, who got farther than you did, who was 9-2 up to this point(having a better record than you), i would be on equal footing rather than 2 games behind
no, no it isn't fair. this isn't "a series of grudgematches". this is a tournament where the goal should be to reduce variance as much as possible and find the player that is most capable of winning the tournament.
|
Maybe I'm confused, but in your last scenario, after the LB player wins the Bo7 series, they play another Bo3 (I think, IIRC from Halo).
EDIT(to travis) :
The point is that they WANT it to be a series of grudge matches. It makes the games more exciting, gives more drama/history to players, etc.
|
On October 17 2010 07:57 RmoteCntrld wrote:
This funky format gives the player who the winners bracket the same chances as the person who won the losers bracket. What if the WB winner has his 2 bad games in the grand finals, he doesn't get that safety net that the LB winner got. I don't like the rule in grand finals, obviously, but I don't think this is quite right. If the WB and LB players haven't played earlier in the tournament, then it's a normal double-elimination style grand finals, so the WB player has an advantage. If they have played, then the WB player still has an advantage, but it might be a smaller advantage than he or she would have had in a normal double-elimination format.
Edit:
On October 17 2010 08:00 Belac wrote:
Maybe I'm confused, but in your last scenario, after the LB player wins the Bo7 series, they play another Bo3 (I think, IIRC from Halo). This is entirely possible, and it's why I keep adding "unless I'm confused" caveats. I can't find anything that says this in the rules, but it might be there somewhere.
|
MLG|Shrew: The grand finals will be two consecutive best-of-three series, if Idra wins either, he is the champion. SeleCT needs to win both to take 1st.
|
i dont like the rule since you already receive punishment by playing more games if you got into the loser bracket.
|
On October 17 2010 08:04 Titan48 wrote:
MLG|Shrew: The grand finals will be two consecutive best-of-three series, if Idra wins either, he is the champion. SeleCT needs to win both to take 1st. Uh, thanks? That's what the rules say, and I think everyone in the thread has understood them, so yeah, no surprises there.
|
All of this is to give the WB winner the advantage because, they haven't dropped a match yet.
The advantages gained earlier in the tournament for being the player dropped down later is you have to play a significantly smaller amount of games to get to the finals.
I like the fact that if teh players matches against each other carry over if they play a second time.
Rule 7 is there because every player has the right to 2 loses b4 being eliminated and the Winners bracket finalist hasn't lost any so it would be seen as somewhat unfair if the one and only loss was an elimination.
As to your point on the finals and carrying over a previous opponents score. It gives the winner at the very least a 1 game cushion. the winner has to win 2 where as the loser has to win 3 or four.
|
On October 17 2010 08:05 CtrlAltGG wrote:
Rule 7 is there because every player has the right to 2 loses b4 being eliminated and the Winners bracket finalist hasn't lost any so it would be seen as somewhat unfair if the one and only loss was an elimination.
As to your point on the finals and carrying over a previous opponents score. It gives the winner at the very least a 1 game cushion. the winner has to win 2 where as the loser has to win 3 or four. Again, I think everybody in the thread (with a couple minor exceptions, perhaps), has understood this. The facts are not under dispute (unless Belac is right about what happens when the grand final is a rematch, but that's not what you've said here).
|
On October 17 2010 08:00 Belac wrote:
Maybe I'm confused, but in your last scenario, after the LB player wins the Bo7 series, they play another Bo3 (I think, IIRC from Halo).
EDIT(to travis) :
The point is that they WANT it to be a series of grudge matches. It makes the games more exciting, gives more drama/history to players, etc.
fine, that's all fine. but i don't like it, because it isn't fair. and people who argue that this is fair are wrong. it adds luck to the brackets, u can have much better or much worse luck based on how the brackets pan out for you.
|
United States13132 Posts
On October 17 2010 07:23 Belac wrote:
Yes, if you are playing someone before you haven't met (ie lost or won against) in the losers bracket, you are on equal footing. That is fair correct?
You aren't on equal footing because you have to win two best of 3 series from the loser's bracket while the winner's bracket finalist only have to win one if you haven't met before.
If you played each other in the winner's bracket, the best of 3 you already played carries over giving the winner the advantage he already earned by knocking you into the loser's bracket.
On October 17 2010 07:23 travis wrote:
fine, that's all fine. but i don't like it, because it isn't fair. and people who argue that this is fair are wrong. it adds luck to the brackets, u can have much better or much worse luck based on how the brackets pan out for you
There is always luck in brackets. Do you seriously believe that there's no luck in having "normal" double elim brackets?
|
On October 17 2010 07:40 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:37 Brad` wrote:On October 17 2010 07:19 Pyrthas wrote:On October 17 2010 07:18 Brad` wrote:
In a world where fatigue and stamina have absolutely no effect on your performance I'm sure that playing twice as many series as another is equal footing. If Select wins this series I dont really care if he's at a 0-0 series with Idra when he had to win 11 series compared to Idra's 6. Pretty sure you missed the point. (Edit: But I might be mistaken, and just not be picking up on what you were trying to say.) If Select storms through 11 players to get to finals, why should he start with a disadvantage against Idra? The system mlg uses gives you an advantage over players you've proven yourself better than by beating them. Why should someone that loses to Idra in round 1 be punished more than someone who loses to to Idra in the semi finals? Whats the difference? If those two players meet up later in the losers bracket why does one deserve an advantage? If you both lose to the same person does the fact that you got farther in the winners bracket really mean anything? I don't agree with the rule but I dont see any way that it gives an advantage to either player. Yup, definitely sure you missed the point now. I'm guessing that you are referring to the first point in my post. Reread the official rule 7. (It basically says, "In the grand final, if the players haven't met earlier in the tournament, then it plays the way a double-elimination bracket normally plays, with the WB player needing to win one bo3 and the LB player needing to win 2.")
Ya I misread it a bit but at the same time my opinon doesn't change I dont like it but I doubt think that is a disadvantage thats going to prevent the better player from winning. I'd rather see just a straight up bo5/7 but I think the better player would win both bo3. My comment was more towards the people that think someone that loses later in the winners should have an advantage over someone who loses earlier.
|
On October 17 2010 08:15 Brad` wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:40 Pyrthas wrote:On October 17 2010 07:37 Brad` wrote:On October 17 2010 07:19 Pyrthas wrote:On October 17 2010 07:18 Brad` wrote:
In a world where fatigue and stamina have absolutely no effect on your performance I'm sure that playing twice as many series as another is equal footing. If Select wins this series I dont really care if he's at a 0-0 series with Idra when he had to win 11 series compared to Idra's 6. Pretty sure you missed the point. (Edit: But I might be mistaken, and just not be picking up on what you were trying to say.) If Select storms through 11 players to get to finals, why should he start with a disadvantage against Idra? The system mlg uses gives you an advantage over players you've proven yourself better than by beating them. Why should someone that loses to Idra in round 1 be punished more than someone who loses to to Idra in the semi finals? Whats the difference? If those two players meet up later in the losers bracket why does one deserve an advantage? If you both lose to the same person does the fact that you got farther in the winners bracket really mean anything? I don't agree with the rule but I dont see any way that it gives an advantage to either player. Yup, definitely sure you missed the point now. I'm guessing that you are referring to the first point in my post. Reread the official rule 7. (It basically says, "In the grand final, if the players haven't met earlier in the tournament, then it plays the way a double-elimination bracket normally plays, with the WB player needing to win one bo3 and the LB player needing to win 2.") Ya I misread it a bit but at the same time my opinon doesn't change I dont like it but I doubt think that is a disadvantage thats going to prevent the better player from winning. Going down 2-0 or 2-1 would pretty much kill you in a b05 anyway. My comment was more towards the people that think someone that loses later in the winners should have an advantage over someone who loses earlier. Not agreeing or disagreeing here; just want to clarify. There are two separate issues. One is whether, in a LB match, the player coming from WB should have a further advantage over the LB player if they've met previously. The other is how to handle the grand finals (which itself has two parts in this thread: rule 7 (which hasn't been discussed much) and what to do when the grand final is a rematch).
Not saying you didn't understand that. But I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page, just in case. Talking past each other is never helpful!
|
On October 17 2010 08:09 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 08:00 Belac wrote:
Maybe I'm confused, but in your last scenario, after the LB player wins the Bo7 series, they play another Bo3 (I think, IIRC from Halo).
EDIT(to travis) :
The point is that they WANT it to be a series of grudge matches. It makes the games more exciting, gives more drama/history to players, etc. fine, that's all fine. but i don't like it, because it isn't fair. and people who argue that this is fair are wrong. it adds luck to the brackets, u can have much better or much worse luck based on how the brackets pan out for you.
Yah, I agree it isn't 100% fair(but its only a slight advantage), but for me I feel it is more fun! It's all a matter of opinion really.
|
On October 17 2010 08:10 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:23 travis wrote:
fine, that's all fine. but i don't like it, because it isn't fair. and people who argue that this is fair are wrong. it adds luck to the brackets, u can have much better or much worse luck based on how the brackets pan out for you There is always luck in brackets. Do you seriously believe that there's no luck in having "normal" double elim brackets?
i didn't say anything of the sort. i said "it adds luck to the brackets". the less luck the better imo. that should be a priority in competitive gaming
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
