|
Edit: Added a summary of the responses at the end.
MLG does not use a standard double-elimination bracket. Of course, that doesn't, on its own, mean that it's bad. Unfortunately, I think it is. Here are the rules:
http://pro-circuit.mlgpro.com/pro-circuit/2010/washington-dc/starcraft-2-1v1/competition-format6. If Players are scheduled to play each other for a 2nd time in the Open Bracket, their Match will expand to a Best of 7, include the previous Match, and pick up where that Match left off. For example, if Player A beat Player B 2 Games to 0 in the Winners Bracket, the Best of 7 will resume with Game 3 and Player A leading 2 Games to 0. When the Match is resumed, the loser of the Winners Bracket Match must select the Map for the upcoming Game and only they may change their Race from the Races that were used in the last Game of the Winners Bracket Match. 7. If the Players scheduled to play each other in the Finals have not yet played against each other in the Open Bracket, an initial Match must be played. If the Player who came from the Winners Bracket wins the initial Match, they will win the Event. If the Player who came from the Losers Bracket wins the Match, a tiebreaking Match must be played. The winner of a tiebreaking Match will win the Event. Game 1 of the initial Match will be played on the Map that has been selected for Game 1 of the Finals. Game 1 of the tiebreaking Match will be played on the Map that has been selected for Game 1 of the Winners Bracket Finals. If the Players have already competed against each other on the Map that has been selected for Game 1 of the Winners Bracket Finals, the Player who came from the Winners Bracket will select the Map for Game 1 of the tiebreaking Match.
Two comments. The first is minor, and the second is major. First, I don't understand why rule 7 isn't just
- If the Players scheduled to play each other in the Finals have not yet played against each other in the Open Bracket, their Match will be a Best of 7, with an initial lead of 2 Games to 0 for the Player who came from the Winners Bracket.
At every other stage in the tournament, two bo3s between the same players turn into a single bo7. The only difference between this version of the rule and the official rule is that under the official rule, the player coming from winners can win two games and lose the grand finals (by going 1-2 in both bo3s). This cannot happen if the two players have played earlier in the tournament. I actually think that the official rule is the better rule to use (it's certainly the standard double-elimination rule), but it seems inconsistent with the way things work out in the rest of the tournament.
Second, and more important, I think rule 6 has less-than-ideal consequences. It means the following.
- In a match in losers, the player coming from winners has an advantage if the two players have met before, but does not have an advantage in any other situation.
It also means (unless I'm misunderstanding what happens in a grand final rematch, which is possible):
- If the grand finals are a rematch from earlier in the tournament (so that rule 7 does not kick in), then the player from winners has the same advantage that he or she would have had if the two players had met in a losers bracket match.
This in turn means that the player coming from winners can have less of an advantage than he or she would have in a normal double-elimination bracket:
- If the grand finals are a rematch and the earlier meeting ended 2-1, then the player coming from losers only has to win 3 games in order to win the grand finals, as opposed to needing to win two bo3s (4 games) in a normal double-elimination bracket. This is also an advantage over what a player coming from losers has to do if the two have not met previously (per rule 7).
I think these are silly differences to have from a normal double-elimination format, although I'm willing to be proved wrong if there's a good justification for them.
Summary: Minor comment: Rule 7 seems inconsistent with the other rules. Major comment: Rule 6 (a) gives the player coming from winners an advantage in every losers bracket match when the two players have met before but not in any other situation, and (b) will sometimes give the player coming from winners less of an advantage in the grand finals.
Edit: The main reasons in favor of MLG's system that have come out of the thread are (a) that it makes for more epic, grudge-y matches, and (b) that it makes you really need to beat your opponent (rather than just advancing with a 2-1 win after losing 0-2 to the same player earlier in the tournament, in which case you've won fewer games than your opponent has) in order to advance, and that the added luck factor is an acceptable cost for these results.
You might disagree with the last judgment. (I do, unsurprisingly.) But if you agree that it's an acceptable cost, then this does account for my second bullet point, and sort of the first (but rule 7 is inconsistent with reason (b) above). It doesn't address the third and fourth bullet points, though.
Again: I might be wrong about how the grand finals work when they're a rematch. I think it's just a single continuation bo7, but if that's not right, then those bullet points might be wrong, too.
|
For your first point, Just giving the WB player a 2-0 lead robs the LB player of the 2-1 that could occur from the Initial Match.
For your second bullet, this rewards players who make it further into the winner's bracket. It promotes winning, not losing, then winning.
For your third point, the first bullet is untrue. In the resulting Bo7, the WB player will have a 1 or 2 game lead. In other words, the WB only has to win two more games, while the LB player would have to win 3 or 4. If were just a Loser's Bracket match, it would be a straight up Bo3. The rule helps players that dominate in the winners bracket.
Basically, the MLG philosophy is that winning the first time (in winner's bracket) is good, and if you win the winner's bracket you should have an advantage.
|
Having had to re-read rule 7 a few times to make sure I got it....
I agree that Rule 7 is a but.. weird, but it's just as if they would assume the the winner went 2-0 against the loser.. which favors the player who dropped no matches. Seems kind of weird, but it seems kind of fair.
Rule 6 seems OK to me. Cause it's this, or you either create a situation where the previous winner has no advantage, which isn't "fair" either, really. And honestly, you're really looking at like 1 game of advantage either way.
|
On October 17 2010 06:35 Belac wrote:
For your first point, Just giving the WB player a 2-0 lead robs the LB player of the 2-1 that could occur from the Initial Match. True. But that is what happens in every other case when you have two bo3s between the same players under this system. (Edit: Again, I wasn't saying that I thought rule 7 was bad. It's a normal double-elimination rule, and so I think it's a good rule! I was just saying that I thought it was inconsistent.)
On October 17 2010 06:35 Belac wrote:
For your second bullet, this rewards players who make it further into the winner's bracket. It promotes winning, not losing, then winning. Only when you face someone you've faced before. It doesn't give anybody else an advantage for coming into a losers bracket match out of winners. That's what I think is silly; it gives you an advantage based on whether you've beaten your opponent earlier in the tournament, and I can't think of a good reason to do that. (Again, I'm open to suggestions! Seriously! That's not sarcasm!)
On October 17 2010 06:35 Belac wrote:
For your third point, the first bullet is untrue. In the resulting Bo7, the WB player will have a 1 or 2 game lead. In other words, the WB only has to win two more games, while the LB player would have to win 3 or 4. Which is the same thing that would happen if they had met in the losers bracket after their first match, instead of in grand finals. Which is what I said. This is where you made a mistake:
On October 17 2010 06:35 Belac wrote:
If were just a Loser's Bracket match, it would be a straight up Bo3. Not if they've met before, given rule 6.
On October 17 2010 06:35 Belac wrote:
The rule helps players that dominate in the winners bracket. No, it doesn't. In a normal double-elimination bracket, the player from LB has to win two bo3s, which requires winning 4 games. In this case, there is the chance that the LB player only has to win 3 games (as you said). That is, in the grand finals, rule 6 can actually make the LB player's job easier.
On October 17 2010 06:39 Utena wrote:
it's just as if they would assume the the winner went 2-0 against the loser.. Almost, but not quite: In a pair of bo3s, the WB player can win two games and lose the finals overall by going 1-2 in both bo3s. In a single bo7 with a 2-0 lead, that's impossible.
On October 17 2010 06:39 Utena wrote:
Rule 6 seems OK to me. Cause it's this, or you either create a situation where the previous winner has no advantage, which isn't "fair" either, really. And honestly, you're really looking at like 1 game of advantage either way. No, there's always an advantage for the WB player, of either 1 or 2 games. Except in grand finals, where the WB player either has no advantage or has a 1 game disadvantage. (In both cases, I mean advantage/disadvantage as compared to a normal double-elimination bracket, which is to say: as compared to what happens if the two players have not met earlier in the tournament.)
Edit: And a 1 game advantage is pretty huge when you're talking about the difference between needing to win 2 or 3, or 3 or 4 games, which is what we have here.
|
I actually lost a finals series for a different game due to these rules, and I was pretty pissed at the time. We had actually lost when the opponent won the same amount of games as we did, if i remember right.
|
On October 17 2010 06:41 iEchoic wrote:
I actually lost a finals series for a different game due to these rules, and I was pretty pissed at the time. We had actually lost when the opponent won the same amount of games as we did, if i remember right. Yeah, that's what seems shitty (and in need of a good reason that I can't think of) to me.
|
On October 17 2010 06:40 Pyrthas wrote:
That's what I think is silly; it gives you an advantage based on whether you've beaten your opponent earlier in the tournament, and I can't think of a good reason to do that. (Again, I'm open to suggestions! Seriously! That's not sarcasm!)
Thats the whole point. You've proven that you've been this player once.
Another thing to remember that two Bo3s is 6 games max, while a Bo7 is, well 7. Think of it as giving the initial winner more time to win two more games.
|
The rules are very, very stupid. Like, amazingly stupid.
I don't even understand how people can argue that the rules are fair. They just add even more luck into the brackets.
|
I was surprised when I heard about this and why they felt they needed to add these special "rules" to a double elimination bracket. I can only assume it was something meant for Halo that they ported over. As far as I know "Pure" Double Elimination brackets have been used for YEARS without any major issues or needing special rules.
The whole purpose of a Double Elimination bracket is suppose to give players a second-chance due to bad games or top players meeting each other early. The whole point of the Loser's bracket is everyone coming into it and being on neutral ground since the ONLY thing that's suppose to matter in Double Elimination Tournament are when you lose TWICE. Not who you play, when you play, or how much you beat them by.
The ONLY penalty that you should have when you enter the Loser's Bracket is that you obviously have to play more games to get to the Finals. The ONLY time someone is suppose to have an advantage in a "Pure" Double Elimination bracket is in the Finals match since it's obviously the Winner's Bracket Finalist(Undefeated) versus Loser's Bracket Finalist(Lost ONE match) so an advantage of some kind has to be given.
MLG needs to reevaluate this rule because an advantage shouldn't exist based solely if you get lucky or not meeting someone you previously defeated. Only advantage that should exist in a Double Elimination Tournament is the in the Final Match.
|
They copied the format from their World of Warcraft tournament which adopted the extended series format last season.
|
Standard double elim just makes things so much easier. 2 lost sets and you're out.
|
are these threads going to pop up every time MLG finals approach?
its double elim. You have to give consequences to the people that try to make it out of losers. If you've already been beaten by a player, you shouldn't get another chance. Double elimination gives you this chance, but with a hill to climb.
I think its fair. Rules are always fair if all parties know them going in. I don't think anyone can blame the rules instead of themselves for not winning this tournament.
|
On October 17 2010 06:54 Belac wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 06:40 Pyrthas wrote:
That's what I think is silly; it gives you an advantage based on whether you've beaten your opponent earlier in the tournament, and I can't think of a good reason to do that. (Again, I'm open to suggestions! Seriously! That's not sarcasm!) Thats the whole point. You've proven that you've been this player once. I realize that's the point. I am trying to say two (separate) things about it, though.
- I don't understand the reasoning behind giving someone an advantage when they've beaten their opponent before but not giving any other players from WB an advantage in LB matches. I realize that's what it's doing, but I don't see why it's good to have a system that does that. That is, I do not yet see why "you've beaten this player once" should mean "you get 1 or 2 more games to beat this player a second time."
- It actually backfires in the grand finals, where it can give an advantage to the person who lost before, rather than to the person who won, and absolutely cannot give an advantage to the person who won before. Basically, in the grand finals, it turns into "you've beaten this player once, but if you let the other player take 1 game off of you in your previous meeting, you actually have fewer chances to beat them now, even though you made it through the entire tournament undefeated."
|
On October 17 2010 07:00 arterian wrote:
They copied the format from their World of Warcraft tournament which adopted the extended series format last season.
No, they had this rule for 2-3 years, I lost because of it in like 2007.
|
On October 17 2010 07:01 mprs wrote:
are these threads going to pop up every time MLG finals approach?
its double elim. You have to give consequences to the people that try to make it out of losers. If you've already been beaten by a player, you shouldn't get another chance. Double elimination gives you this chance, but with a hill to climb.
I think its fair. Rules are always fair if all parties know them going in. I don't think anyone can blame the rules instead of themselves for not winning this tournament.
Either you lack reading comprehension, or you're just completely not addressing the qualms that people have with this format.
This ISNT just double elimination. I know what double elimination is. This is double elimination with a retarded twist that adds a "you can possibly get screwed over" factor.
|
On October 17 2010 07:01 mprs wrote:
are these threads going to pop up every time MLG finals approach? Maybe. Sorry. It was the first time I encountered it.
On October 17 2010 07:01 mprs wrote:
its double elim. You have to give consequences to the people that try to make it out of losers. If you've already been beaten by a player, you shouldn't get another chance. Double elimination gives you this chance, but with a hill to climb. By choosing to use a double-elimination format, you're already choosing to give people a second chance. That's the whole point of the format. So why do you get less of a chance when you happen to play someone for the second time?
Also, again, it reverses in the grand finals, as far as I can tell from the rules as they're written. If I'm confused, of course, I'm happy to be corrected.
|
I don't really see what's confusing you..
If I have played you before.. we continue our series, I was able to win the first 2, and I made it farther in the winner's bracket. This is how it works in MLG tournaments, all of their tournaments have a double elimination style to give players a second chance. Look at Select, he went in to losers bracket Winners rd 2, but now has battled back to play for a chance in the championship match.
The format is a little confusing at first, but once you watch a tournament or two or actually play in one, it makes a lot of sense. The winners bracket finalist plays against the losers bracket finalist, The winners bracket finalist only needs to win 1 series to take the tournament, since it would make the losers bracket finalist lose twice(double eliminated). The losers bracket finalist needs to win two series, one series putting the winners bracket finalist into the losers bracket finals, and one series to eliminate the winners bracket finalist.
This format is really good imo, and much better than single elimination, it gives you a second chance, and lets things like being bracket screwed not matter as much..
say the best player and the second best player, play first round. That best player will win, knocking second best player to losers.. that second best player can grind his way through losers all the way to the grand final and claim second place prize(which he is deserving of)...
Sure seeds help with this as well.. but not everyone is seeded, as they did not attend the first event.. the seeds just reward players for consistent results and give you an easier bracket.
|
This rule is just ridiculous... so confusing
Winners ro8?? What? Losers bracket ro4??? o.m.f.g. -.-;
|
On October 17 2010 07:01 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:00 arterian wrote:
They copied the format from their World of Warcraft tournament which adopted the extended series format last season. No, they had this rule for 2-3 years, I lost because of it in like 2007. What did you play in?
|
On October 17 2010 07:04 BraveGhost wrote:
I don't really see what's confusing you.. Nobody is confused about the format. I am not asking what the rules are, but why they are this way instead of normal double-elimination rules. Edit: With a little irritation, I might suggest that you reread the OP.
Here's a summary: It's double-elimination plus "you need to win more games if you rematch someone you lost to before unless you rematch them in the grand finals (then maybe you actually need to win fewer)." My question: Why add that extra stuff?
|
isnt the extended series just another fancy way of saying double elimination?
i mean if the player starts up with either a 2-1 or 2-0 score, if the player from the winner bracket loses 4 games, thats like losing two best of threes.
I think that they just need to change it so they play a series, and if the lower bracket player withs the series, then they play in another best of 3. This would be the same as the winner's bracket player winning the first two games and eliminating the lower bracket player.
I think MLG just over complicates the double elimination format for the views by having the extended series.
|
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?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in that other mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament.
|
On October 17 2010 07:06 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:04 BraveGhost wrote:
I don't really see what's confusing you.. Nobody is confused about the format. I am not asking what the rules are, but why they are this way instead of normal double-elimination rules. Edit: With a little irritation, I might suggest that you reread the OP.
Yeah I had to question if he read the main post or not. What he described no one has a problem with. It's the "special rules" MLG felt the need to conjure up for some weird reason. I would actually be curious why they felt the need to add them.
|
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?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in the last mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament.
You aren't equal, one player got further in the winner's bracket...
|
On October 17 2010 07:05 SC2Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:01 iEchoic wrote:On October 17 2010 07:00 arterian wrote:
They copied the format from their World of Warcraft tournament which adopted the extended series format last season. No, they had this rule for 2-3 years, I lost because of it in like 2007. What did you play in?
It was a tournament for SOCOM by gamebattles, which adopted the MLG rules (MLG owns gamebattles).
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?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in that other mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament.
Agreed. Like I said, it's actually possible for team A to beat team B when the record between the two teams is actually even. That makes no sense and does not show who is the better team.
|
On October 17 2010 07:10 Belac 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?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in the last mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament. You aren't equal, one player got further in the winner's bracket...
which is why the player who didn't get further in the winners bracket had to play more matches in the losers bracket
thats how double elimination works
furthermore, u can be playing someone who got farther in the winners bracket but if u didn't play them before in the tournament ur still on even footing, so your explanation doesn't even make sense
|
On October 17 2010 07:07 Punic wrote:
isnt the extended series just another fancy way of saying double elimination? Not when the two players have faced each other previously. See the OP for an explanation of why.
|
I feel like MLG just plays too many games. I'd love to see a group stage into ro16 single elim
|
I agree with Travis 100 percent. The format isn't innovative by any stretch of the imagination. They're trying to be different. :/
|
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?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in that other mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament.
Not to mention how many games select games has had to play today alone, He's at such a disadvantage today just because he lost 2-1 to nony.
|
Bo3 is indeed 6 games max, but a bo7 is 5 max for the finals, considering going into it 2-0. Going into the bo7 2-1 makes that 4.
So for the winner that means that his chances in the finals, the amount of games he can play and win, is less.
Another thing I would like to point out is a conclusion based on what Pyrthas said, something I had not realized myself. With the continuation of the bo7, the order in which the winner wins his 2 games he needs to win the series, does not matter. In the 2 bo3's, they have to be quite consecutive. No more than one loss can be in between the 2 wins because otherwise the series would reset, and he would need an additional win. (0-1, 1-1, 1-2 -> 0-0, 1-0 etc)
What that would boil down to is that two bo3's grants at most 6 chances to win, but the time/order the winning rounds happen are restricted.
Whereas a continuation grants at most 5 chances to win, but the time/order of the winning rounds can occur in any order.
I think that it's really hard if not impossible to have a definite answer to which one of them is better. Especially considering a lot of variables like; mental state, tiredness and many more I'm sure, come into play.
Therefor I think that if the winning bracket player will have the option to choose, between 2 bo3's or continuing the series into a bo7, it would be as close to fair as possible.
Additionally if an argument can be made after that the way it turned out could have been a disadvantage to the winning bracket player, the counter argument that it was his preference to play it out that way can be easily made.
|
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.
|
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.)
|
On October 17 2010 07:10 Belac 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?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in the last mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament. You aren't equal, one player got further in the winner's bracket...
This is how MLG works.. if I get further than winner's bracket than you.. and I knocked you down to loser's bracket, then I have an advantage over you, we continue our series... If I play someone in loser's I didn't knock down, we are on even footing cause someone else knocked you down, therefore we haven't tested eachother's skills yet(MLG doesn't know who's better, you gotta fight it out to move on, maybe you got knocked down by somebody a ton better than me). Idk why it's not friendly to you guys as spectators, but it is actually really really nice as a player.. I've been on the bad end of seedings in MLG. You spend a lot of $ on plane ticket + hotel + entry, no need to go home after 1 match.
The tournament is set up to end up with the best players in the top 8 over and over and over... And also helps the new guys get some experience, and who have bad seedings... it's just good for everyone.
EDIT: Double Elimination format finds the Best players(maybe not the first tournament but after a few tournaments, the point system keeps good players spread out and lets them not knock each other out early, but a new comer has a chance to get up there and get points thanks to double elim
|
I like the format, I think it gives players a much better chance to prove who's the best because they get a chance to come back and win it all no matter what.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
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.
But if idra knocked out select in winner round. Idra would have an advantage in score alone. It can be such a big advantage.
|
On October 17 2010 07:19 TheAngelofDeath wrote:
I like the format, I think it gives players a much better chance to prove who's the best because they get a chance to come back and win it all no matter what.
Please read the OP. We aren't talking about the format but the special rules added to the format.
|
On October 17 2010 07:11 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:10 Belac 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?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in the last mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament. You aren't equal, one player got further in the winner's bracket... which is why the player who didn't get further in the winners bracket had to play more matches in the losers bracket thats how double elimination worksfurthermore, u can be playing someone who got farther in the winners bracket but if u didn't play them before in the tournament ur still on even footing, so your explanation doesn't even make sense
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?
|
On October 17 2010 07:19 BraveGhost wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 17 2010 07:10 Belac 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?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in the last mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament. You aren't equal, one player got further in the winner's bracket... This is how MLG works.. if I get further than winner's bracket than you.. and I knocked you down to loser's bracket, then I have an advantage over you, we continue our series... If I play someone in loser's I didn't knock down, we are on even footing cause someone else knocked you down, therefore we haven't tested eachother's skills yet(MLG doesn't know who's better, you gotta fight it out to move on, maybe you got knocked down by somebody a ton better than me). Idk why it's not friendly to you guys as spectators, but it is actually really really nice as a player.. I've been on the bad end of seedings in MLG. You spend a lot of $ on plane ticket + hotel + entry, no need to go home after 1 match. The tournament is set up to end up with the best players in the top 8 over and over and over... And also helps the new guys get some experience, and who have bad seedings... it's just good for everyone. EDIT: Double Elimination format finds the Best players(maybe not the first tournament but after a few tournaments, the point system keeps good players spread out and lets them not knock each other out early, but a new comer has a chance to get up there and get points thanks to double elim This is the first attempt at an explanation for the added rules, but you've added a lot of other stuff about normal double elim as well. So here's my attempt to get the reason out:
me trying to explain BraveGhost's reasoning
The goal of double elimination is to make sure that if you're unlucky and meet someone much better than you early on, you still have the chance to play more. But if you've already lost once to your opponent, then you need to try extra hard to prove that you deserve to stay in the tournament. What I don't yet understand is why you should need to try extra hard. Or, put another way, here's what the rule actually seems to say to me:
- 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.
And, just to reiterate, there's still the issue of the advantage suddenly being reversed if the grand final is a rematch.
Edit:
On October 17 2010 07:23 Belac wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:11 travis wrote:On October 17 2010 07:10 Belac 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?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in the last mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament. You aren't equal, one player got further in the winner's bracket... which is why the player who didn't get further in the winners bracket had to play more matches in the losers bracket thats how double elimination worksfurthermore, u can be playing someone who got farther in the winners bracket but if u didn't play them before in the tournament ur still on even footing, so your explanation doesn't even make sense 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? travis's point is that while the score of your particular match starts off at 0-0, so that in that sense you are on equal footing, you aren't on equal footing in the sense that the person coming from LB has had to play more games than you have, coming from WB. The more you win in WB, the fewer games you have to play overall in order to get to the grand final. That's how double elim works. And then, once again, there is the question: Why should you get more of an advantage if you've also beaten your opponent earlier in the tournament? Again, so far, BraveGhost is the only person who has given a reason for that. I'm not entirely convinced by the reason, but at least it's engaging with the real issue.
|
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?
The MLG system disadvantages players who have lost to people they're currently playing against compared to people who lost to different people. The 'standard' double bo3 system allows players to be kicked out of a tournament despite winning more games against their last opponent than they lost.
Depending on how you look at it, both can be seen to be unfair, but the second one strikes me as being more blatantly unfair. Your mileage may vary.
|
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.
|
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
|
The title 'unusual' extended series system is misleading. This is a common variation on the double elimination system and has been used elsewhere.
As for whether or not it is fair, I think it's nearly equally as fair as playing 2 Bo3s (which is the rule if they haven't met). Playing 2 Bo3s gives the loser the option to go 4-2 and still win, where in a Bo7 with a 2-1 disadvantage, his max worst record to win is 3-1. In a Bo7 with a 2-0 disadvantage, his max worst record to win is 4-1.
HOWEVER, in a double Bo3 series, you cannot go 1-2 in the same Bo3 or you lose it all. Therefore, that extra 1 loss you are allowed playing double Bo3s has to be done in a -very- specific manner. Also, in a Bo7 with only a 2-1 disadvantage, you only have to win 3 matches. This could help if you were very exhausted or something.
That said, the rule did not even affect MLG DC.
SeleCT won the only extended series, and he was the loser in the first round. An extended series gives an extra -slight- (read: 1-2 game) disadvantage to the loser. Therefore, SeleCT won despite the disadvantage.
|
I have a feeling they might change it for next year... I would love to see semifinals be extended as well to bo5's...
|
You can't really add "more" luck. If you get lucky with a good bracket you've got a better chance. If you get a crappy bracket, hope for a better one next tour you play in. There isn't some magical, since rule X exists this bracket would be lucky for me, but now it's lucky times 2!
|
On October 17 2010 08:27 dcemuser wrote:
-slight- (read: 1-2 game) disadvantage 1-2 games in a bo7 is not slight.
Everything else you said was just describing the rule, and not giving reasons for thinking that it's fair or unfair. Most everyone in the thread understands the rule, though, so I'm not really sure what the point of all that was. (Especially in light of what other people, like Aim Here and BraveGhost, have already said.)
Edit:
Of course you can add luck. Whether it's good or bad to add luck, and whether this particular case is actually a case in which luck has been added, are separate issues, of course. But of course you can introduce more randomness to a process that contains some randomness.
|
On October 17 2010 08:20 Pyrthas wrote:
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!
Well I'm pretty sure Mlg's reasoning is that every player has the ability to lose one bo3, which I assume is what allows for IdrA to lose one in the finals. Perhaps having them continue on into a bo7 would be better instead of a second bo3.
edit:Reworded it.
|
On October 17 2010 08:38 Brad` wrote:
every player has the ability to lose one bo3 and still have the opportunity to continue on in the tournament Independent of everything else: Is this true in the case where the grand final is a rematch and the WB player loses? This is the major thing I'm not certain of. It seems to me that the rules say that, for instance, if Huk had beaten select in the losers final, then the grand final would have been a bo7 with Idra up 2-0 over Huk. Is that correct? If so, what happens if Idra loses the bo7? Is he knocked out? Does he get a second chance?
I've been assuming throughout the thread that this is correct, and that Idra would not get a second chance. (And if so, I think that the finals are unfair for the WB player if it's a rematch and the earlier match was 2-1, as I've explained before.) But I admit that I can't find anything completely conclusive in the rules.
|
On October 17 2010 08:32 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
You can't really add "more" luck. If you get lucky with a good bracket you've got a better chance. If you get a crappy bracket, hope for a better one next tour you play in. There isn't some magical, since rule X exists this bracket would be lucky for me, but now it's lucky times 2!
wtf are u even arguing? is english not your first language?
here, let me change the words for you since for some reason you don't understand
IT ADDS VARIANCE
|
On October 17 2010 08:37 Pyrthas wrote:
1-2 games in a bo7 is not slight.
Everything else you said was just describing the rule, and not giving reasons for thinking that it's fair or unfair. Most everyone in the thread understands the rule, though, so I'm not really sure what the point of all that was. (Especially in light of what other people, like Aim Here and BraveGhost, have already said.)
I'm trying to point out that you guys are acting like the rule is 100% negative and there is no redeeming case.
There IS one counter-case (in the finals only).
If you were going to go WWWLLL (or WWLWLL or WLWWLL or LWWWLL), you could win an extended Bo7 assuming you started with a 2-1 disadvantage because you don't end up playing the matches you would have lost.
In a double Bo3 - you would lose with that order of wins and losses.
Edit: I made it more clear I was referring to the finals only.
I know this is a very far out there situation, but it makes the rule only like 99% negative.
Personally, I think if they want to keep the rule, they should only keep it for the finals and only if the finals player lost in the semis to that same player.
This would eliminate all of the weird situations like losing to a guy in the round of 64 and then getting screwed over when you get into a finals match with him.
|
I really liked mlg's format. I was scared yesterday with the stream quality and delays, but today definately delivered.
|
Travis is kind of right, being two games down just beacuse you happend to play the guy earlier in WB is beyond stupid and not actually fair at all. You could have a similiar record as the guy who you faced and still get punished beacuse of silly rules like this.
Tournament structure should always be made as fair as possible to try to ensure that the best player wins the event.
|
On October 17 2010 08:46 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 08:37 Pyrthas wrote:
1-2 games in a bo7 is not slight.
Everything else you said was just describing the rule, and not giving reasons for thinking that it's fair or unfair. Most everyone in the thread understands the rule, though, so I'm not really sure what the point of all that was. (Especially in light of what other people, like Aim Here and BraveGhost, have already said.)
I'm trying to point out that you guys are acting like the rule is 100% negative and there is no redeeming case. There IS one counter-case. If you were going to go WWWLLL (or WWLWLL or WLWWLL or LWWWLL), you could win an extended Bo7 assuming you started with a 2-1 disadvantage. In a double Bo3 - you would lose with that order of wins and losses. I'm pretty confused here. Why are you talking about playing six games with a beginning score of 2-1? I could understand if you were talking about two bo3s and then talking about starting out being down 2-0 (that would be relevant to the discussion of rule 7 in the OP), but then you wouldn't have WWWLLL; you would have WW (first bo3) and WLL (second bo3), etc. Maybe that was just a typo or something, I dunno. Could you spell out the case you have in mind a little more?
And then could you explain why you're not just saying this, which is in the OP?
On October 17 2010 06:11 Pyrthas wrote:
The only difference between this version of the rule and the official rule is that under the official rule, the player coming from winners can win two games and lose the grand finals (by going 1-2 in both bo3s).
|
This really makes no sense.
It's unfair. It adds randomness. It wears players out trying to come back from 0-2 in a bo7 whereas their peers are playing bo3s. If you want rivalries just invite Idra and Tyler and play a showmatch. If you want a real tournament don't come up with rules that create unprofessional conditions.
|
On October 17 2010 08:50 Senx wrote:
Tournament structure should always be made as fair as possible to try to ensure that the best player wins the event.
In that case, every tournament would be standard double elimination (no extended series). I think that is the most fair format to the players.
However, I also think double elimination (and the extended series too) in general is boring to watch.
Flash vs Jaedong finals are EPIC because the games are so close and there is huge hype over them.
How much hype would there be if Flash beat Jaedong in the semis and then Jaedong went to the losers bracket, beat somebody else, and then had to play Flash again, but now win 2 BoX series (or play an extended series with a disadvantage)?
Answer: Probably not as much.
|
The whole point of giving the WB winner a 2-0 lead is that they are rewarded for performing so well in the tournament up until that point. The problem is that players who have to fight through the loser bracket are already at a disadvantage because they have to play so many more games and are mentally and physically exhausted. Therefore it seems redundant to further punish loser's bracket players by starting them with a disadvantage in the finals.
|
On October 17 2010 08:42 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 08:38 Brad` wrote:
every player has the ability to lose one bo3 and still have the opportunity to continue on in the tournament Independent of everything else: Is this true in the case where the grand final is a rematch and the WB player loses? This is the major thing I'm not certain of. It seems to me that the rules say that, for instance, if Huk had beaten select in the losers final, then the grand final would have been a bo7 with Idra up 2-0 over Huk. Is that correct? If so, what happens if Idra loses the bo7? Is he knocked out? Does he get a second chance? I've been assuming throughout the thread that this is correct, and that Idra would not get a second chance. (And if so, I think that the finals are unfair for the WB player if it's a rematch and the earlier match was 2-1, as I've explained before.) But I admit that I can't find anything completely conclusive in the rules.
Ya the rules definately need to clarified. From my position I'd have to assume that entering a bo7 in the finals doesn't allow you your one series loss. Not really sure what to make of that because I guess its "unfair" but at the same time I think bo7 is a big enough sample size for the better player to win.
|
On October 17 2010 08:55 frog HERO wrote:
The whole point of giving the WB winner a 2-0 lead is that they are rewarded for performing so well in the tournament up until that point. No, it isn't; that's what Aim Here and BraveGhost and so on have been saying. I don't disagree with your sentiment overall, of course! But this isn't the reason that those people have given in favor of MLG's system.
|
MLG's format is much, much better than MSL and other double-elimination formats. The player coming from the winner's bracket was facing far stronger opponents than the player coming from the loser's bracket.
If two players face each other in two Bo3s, and they each win one, it doesn't make sense to knock out the player who happened to win the first and lose the second, just because he lost a set to a harder opponent that the other player likely would have lost as well.
|
On October 17 2010 08:58 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 08:55 frog HERO wrote:
The whole point of giving the WB winner a 2-0 lead is that they are rewarded for performing so well in the tournament up until that point. No, it isn't. Please read the thread.
Yes, it is.
"If the Players scheduled to play each other in the Finals have not yet played against each other in the Open Bracket, an initial Match must be played. If the Player who came from the Winners Bracket wins the initial Match, they will win the Event. "
An advantage is clearly given to the player who comes through the Winner's bracket. The problem with this is that the WB winner already has an advantage over the LB winner because the LB winner has to play more games. Therefore I don't think this rule is a good one and should be changed.
|
On October 17 2010 08:51 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 08:46 dcemuser wrote:On October 17 2010 08:37 Pyrthas wrote:
1-2 games in a bo7 is not slight.
Everything else you said was just describing the rule, and not giving reasons for thinking that it's fair or unfair. Most everyone in the thread understands the rule, though, so I'm not really sure what the point of all that was. (Especially in light of what other people, like Aim Here and BraveGhost, have already said.)
I'm trying to point out that you guys are acting like the rule is 100% negative and there is no redeeming case. There IS one counter-case. If you were going to go WWWLLL (or WWLWLL or WLWWLL or LWWWLL), you could win an extended Bo7 assuming you started with a 2-1 disadvantage. In a double Bo3 - you would lose with that order of wins and losses. I'm pretty confused here. Why are you talking about playing six games with a beginning score of 2-1? I could understand if you were talking about two bo3s and then talking about starting out being down 2-0 (that would be relevant to the discussion of rule 7 in the OP), but then you wouldn't have WWWLLL; you would have WW (first bo3) and WLL (second bo3), etc. Maybe that was just a typo or something, I dunno. Could you spell out the case you have in mind a little more?
Right, it is a hypothetical countercase. If a player only had the mental fortitude/willpower remaining to win only 3 games after coming from the loser's bracket (although SeleCT didn't have the energy left to win 1, arguably, poor guy), but not enough to win 4, then playing a Bo7 with a 2-1 disadvantage could be favorable to a double Bo3 situation because you require less wins to advance (needing 4 in double Bo3s).
I know that is heavily oversimpilifying things and that a direct comparison can't be made because of other factors (e.g. losers bracket player may be more confident not coming into a game with a visible disadvantage), but I thought it was worth pointing out.
That one specific example aside, I think the rule is very poor, especially in the non-finals rounds. Tyler had a significant advantage over SeleCT even though they both lost, which doesn't seem very fair to me.
|
Tyler had an advantage against Select, because he already beat Select. I this point seems to be lost on people. This continuation series can only happen once to you.
|
An MLG SC2 event will never be won by anyone coming from LB.. its far too exhausting and too much of an uphill battle with these stupid rules.
Then you're gonna say.. "well they're obviously not good enough to win the event if they get knocked down to LB." Whos to say that? You don't know what happend in those games. Besides, why the fuck would you even have a LB if the player who gets out of WB has the finals to lose, not to win beacuse of the numerous advantages he gets coming into the grand final.
It creates an extremely uninteresting final like we saw today and at MLG Raleigh.
I hope they learn..
|
On October 17 2010 09:03 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 08:51 Pyrthas wrote:On October 17 2010 08:46 dcemuser wrote:On October 17 2010 08:37 Pyrthas wrote:
1-2 games in a bo7 is not slight.
Everything else you said was just describing the rule, and not giving reasons for thinking that it's fair or unfair. Most everyone in the thread understands the rule, though, so I'm not really sure what the point of all that was. (Especially in light of what other people, like Aim Here and BraveGhost, have already said.)
I'm trying to point out that you guys are acting like the rule is 100% negative and there is no redeeming case. There IS one counter-case. If you were going to go WWWLLL (or WWLWLL or WLWWLL or LWWWLL), you could win an extended Bo7 assuming you started with a 2-1 disadvantage. In a double Bo3 - you would lose with that order of wins and losses. I'm pretty confused here. Why are you talking about playing six games with a beginning score of 2-1? I could understand if you were talking about two bo3s and then talking about starting out being down 2-0 (that would be relevant to the discussion of rule 7 in the OP), but then you wouldn't have WWWLLL; you would have WW (first bo3) and WLL (second bo3), etc. Maybe that was just a typo or something, I dunno. Could you spell out the case you have in mind a little more? Right, it is a hypothetical countercase. If a player only had the mental fortitude/willpower remaining to win only 3 games after coming from the loser's bracket (although SeleCT didn't have the energy left to win 1, arguably, poor guy), but not enough to win 4, then playing a Bo7 with a 2-1 disadvantage could be favorable to a double Bo3 situation because you require less wins to advance (needing 4 in double Bo3s). I know that is heavily oversimpilifying things and that a direct comparison can't be made because of other factors (e.g. losers bracket player may be more confident not coming into a game with a visible disadvantage), but I thought it was worth pointing out. That one specific example aside, I think the rule is very poor, especially in the non-finals rounds. Tyler had a significant advantage over SeleCT even though they both lost, which doesn't seem very fair to me.
Ohh, I see. So really, what you're saying is this!
On October 17 2010 06:11 Pyrthas wrote:- If the grand finals are a rematch and the earlier meeting ended 2-1, then the player coming from losers only has to win 3 games in order to win the grand finals, as opposed to needing to win two bo3s (4 games) in a normal double-elimination bracket. This is also an advantage over what a player coming from losers has to do if the two have not met previously (per rule 7).
Sorry, I quoted the wrong part of the OP in my last reply. But yes, I agree, and have said many times in this thread, that the rule actually favors the LB player in the finals.
Here's another quote from page 3 that's more explicit.
On October 17 2010 07:40 Pyrthas wrote: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.)
|
What do people think about IEM's group stages where the people with the best records move on, vs the MLG tournament with a losers bracket?
the KOTB tournament used IEM's group stages format, and in those, Tester beat Idra 2-0. Idra advanced anyway, and came back to beat Tester in the finals 3-2. Does this seem fair to people? Or would you rather have it in MLG's format, where if Idra had come back to the finals, Tester would have won with his advantage from a previous set?
I'm a bit undecided. I like it when the finals have more games to play, and it seems silly if Idra had knocked select out 2-0, and then he comes back out through the losers bracket to beat Idra 2-0 or something in a Bo3 finals. That does nothing to really prove who the better player is. So on one hand it's good if a previous record carries over, but then you end up with a finals with only 2 games? It's so anti-climatic. I'm not sure where the middle ground is.
|
On October 17 2010 09:09 Senx wrote:
An MLG SC2 event will never be won by anyone coming from LB.. its far too exhausting and too much of an uphill battle with these stupid rules.
Then you're gonna say.. "well they're obviously not good enough to win the event if they get knocked down to LB." Whos to say that? You don't know what happend in those games. Besides, why the fuck would you even have a LB if the player who gets out of WB has the finals to lose, not to win beacuse of the numerous advantages he gets coming into the grand final.
It creates an extremely uninteresting final like we saw today and at MLG Raleigh.
I hope they learn..
The Extended Series Rules played no part in the finals today. The only way they mattered was that Select had to play and extended series against Tyler, which he won.
|
On October 17 2010 09:14 Belac wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 09:09 Senx wrote:
An MLG SC2 event will never be won by anyone coming from LB.. its far too exhausting and too much of an uphill battle with these stupid rules.
Then you're gonna say.. "well they're obviously not good enough to win the event if they get knocked down to LB." Whos to say that? You don't know what happend in those games. Besides, why the fuck would you even have a LB if the player who gets out of WB has the finals to lose, not to win beacuse of the numerous advantages he gets coming into the grand final.
It creates an extremely uninteresting final like we saw today and at MLG Raleigh.
I hope they learn.. The Extended Series Rules played no part in the finals today. The only way they mattered was that Select had to play and extended series against Tyler, which he won.
exactly, which is why he (select) said he was too tired to play the finals after the exhausting LB play.
So yes it actually did play a big part in the finals.
|
On October 17 2010 09:19 Senx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 09:14 Belac wrote:On October 17 2010 09:09 Senx wrote:
An MLG SC2 event will never be won by anyone coming from LB.. its far too exhausting and too much of an uphill battle with these stupid rules.
Then you're gonna say.. "well they're obviously not good enough to win the event if they get knocked down to LB." Whos to say that? You don't know what happend in those games. Besides, why the fuck would you even have a LB if the player who gets out of WB has the finals to lose, not to win beacuse of the numerous advantages he gets coming into the grand final.
It creates an extremely uninteresting final like we saw today and at MLG Raleigh.
I hope they learn.. The Extended Series Rules played no part in the finals today. The only way they mattered was that Select had to play and extended series against Tyler, which he won. exactly, which is why he (select) said he was too tired to play the finals after the exhausting LB play. So yes it actually did play a big part in the finals. I'd be really surprised if the one additional game he played against Tyler was what pushed him over the edge. Needing to play so many more games is a consequence of a double-elimination bracket, with or without the extended series (that is, with or without MLG's rule 6, which has been the topic of discussion here).
|
On October 17 2010 09:11 Tachion wrote:
What do people think about IEM's group stages where the people with the best records move on, vs the MLG tournament with a losers bracket?
the KOTB tournament used IEM's group stages format, and in those, Tester beat Idra 2-0. Idra advanced anyway, and came back to beat Tester in the finals 3-2. Does this seem fair to people? Or would you rather have it in MLG's format, where if Idra had come back to the finals, Tester would have won with his advantage from a previous set?
I'm a bit undecided. I like it when the finals have more games to play, and it seems silly if Idra had knocked select out 2-0, and then he comes back out through the losers bracket to beat Idra 2-0 or something in a Bo3 finals. That does nothing to really prove who the better player is. So on one hand it's good if a previous record carries over, but then you end up with a finals with only 2 games? It's so anti-climatic. I'm not sure where the middle ground is.
Im surprised that MLG doesn't have best of 5 semi's, and finals(I would prefer this), but since a lot of arguing against the loser's bracket system is the exhausting amount of games it's really hard to find a middle ground that's fair for everyone.
If Idra had knocked select out 2-0, and then he came back through to play in the finals, it would have been an extended series(b07), starting with Idra being up 2-0.. so in your scenario Idra and Select would be tied 2-2, and whoever gets 4 first wins, Idra would not have lost the tournament in that scenario(at least according to MLG rules)
|
On October 17 2010 09:09 Senx wrote:
An MLG SC2 event will never be won by anyone coming from LB.. its far too exhausting and too much of an uphill battle with these stupid rules.
Then you're gonna say.. "well they're obviously not good enough to win the event if they get knocked down to LB." Whos to say that? You don't know what happend in those games. Besides, why the fuck would you even have a LB if the player who gets out of WB has the finals to lose, not to win beacuse of the numerous advantages he gets coming into the grand final.
It creates an extremely uninteresting final like we saw today and at MLG Raleigh.
I hope they learn..
They need to move the r06 (winners finals, losers bracket semis/loser bracket finals, grand final) to Sunday, I think this would greatly improve the tournament.
Halo 3 is on Sunday, why can't SC2 go all three days as well.
|
SC2 is still an unproven game for them. That's probably why they don't make more time for it (which would allow for the loser bracket player to rest). If it continues to generate good support and turn-outs I'm sure we'll see the quality of the tournament improving.
Just look at how much better DC was to Raleigh (which was by no means shabby itself).
|
Halo takes so long because its like a 200+ team open (with like 20 seeded mlg pro sponsored teams)
thats why it takes 3 days
also do you understand the concept of logistics?
|
On October 17 2010 09:33 taLbuk wrote:
also do you understand the concept of logistics? No need to be uncivil.
|
they aren't the way normal double elimination is because they want to give you a chance to play, but they want to reward people who win. every win counts with MLG's style of double-elim. they don't want everyone to simply have two chances to win, and if you lose, hey its okay, one more chance! so they give you incentive to win and on the off-chance that you end up in a situation where you played someone you already beat, you are rewarded for having won unlike regular double-elim which acts as if that never existed.
in the grand finals, the LB player has to win 2 bo3s because he has to first knock the winner's bracket finals winner into the loser's bracket, where they are then on equal footing. that is the advantage of never having lost. this is the way i've understood MLG's double-elim and it's never crossed my mind as being lucky or unfair, unless you lose.
i disagree that it's random, unfair, or lucky or whatever you want to call it. the system is designed so that those who win are rewarded for doing so and every win you get is a greater advantage, and those who lose get another chance when they should be knocked out entirely. the earlier you go to losers, the harder the road. i think it's more unfair for someone to see someone lose, get another chance, and then win against the same player who just beat them with no penalty for having that happen to them at all.
however, because starcraft is such a draining game compared to halo, i'm not sure if it's the best way to do it, even if i do agree with the design in theory. it's a much bigger advantage to win because of the exhaustion, which really doesn't come out in halo or other shooters in the many years i've played them. i like the idea of rewarding winners for winning while giving losers one more chance, but the way this played out was just too much of a disadvantage to select. it seems like you would have to be physically in condition just to play from that much of a setback, which is the only part i find unfair about it.
|
I think that the system is fine but the grand final should be a simple bo5/bo7 - and that's it. Sure, one other player has beaten everyone he met and the one that comes from losers' bracket has lost to someone. However, the one from losers' bracket is, naturally, extremely exhausted, which is a punishment enough for losing a game.
|
I prefer it over GSL where a player can lose to some all-in, cheese, rush, ect and have no chance to try again in a losers bracket.
Like NEXGenius vs DAVIT. It was pathetic. I'm not saying NEX would have come close to winning if he got a losers bracket second chance, but it makes the game better.
In a BO3, whoever loses the first match is under so much pressure..
|
On October 17 2010 09:09 Senx wrote:
An MLG SC2 event will never be won by anyone coming from LB.. its far too exhausting and too much of an uphill battle with these stupid rules.
Then you're gonna say.. "well they're obviously not good enough to win the event if they get knocked down to LB." Whos to say that? You don't know what happend in those games. Besides, why the fuck would you even have a LB if the player who gets out of WB has the finals to lose, not to win beacuse of the numerous advantages he gets coming into the grand final.
It creates an extremely uninteresting final like we saw today and at MLG Raleigh.
I hope they learn..
I can't agree with this, if you look at huge tournaments like the GSL, nobody says "oh that player got knocked out by cheese, we should give him a second chance" if you got knocked to losers you lost one way or another, by definition you should be on the losers bracket, also these special rules make it so that every loss counts and you really need to treat every game as seriously as possible, on paper its a good system imo, the problem arises on starcraft being an incredibly taxing game since series have the potential to last hours and on that note I do agree with you.
Perhaps if the games were spaced out so the LB semi's and grand finals would be on sunday it would work out much better but of course nobody will want that and the community will ultimately complain again.
|
On October 17 2010 09:54 xtfftc wrote:
I think that the system is fine but the grand final should be a simple bo5/bo7 - and that's it. Sure, one other player has beaten everyone he met and the one that comes from losers' bracket has lost to someone. However, the one from losers' bracket is, naturally, extremely exhausted, which is a punishment enough for losing a game.
it's not that you're punishing the losing player, it's that the winning player never got his second chance to lose, and because there's no more matches, he gets it in the grand finals.
|
On October 17 2010 09:56 RedHelix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 09:09 Senx wrote:
An MLG SC2 event will never be won by anyone coming from LB.. its far too exhausting and too much of an uphill battle with these stupid rules.
Then you're gonna say.. "well they're obviously not good enough to win the event if they get knocked down to LB." Whos to say that? You don't know what happend in those games. Besides, why the fuck would you even have a LB if the player who gets out of WB has the finals to lose, not to win beacuse of the numerous advantages he gets coming into the grand final.
It creates an extremely uninteresting final like we saw today and at MLG Raleigh.
I hope they learn.. I can't agree with this, if you look at huge tournaments like the GSL, nobody says "oh that player got knocked out by cheese, we should give him a second chance" if you got knocked to losers you lost one way or another, by definition you should be on the losers bracket, also these special rules make it so that every loss counts and you really need to treat every game as seriously as possible, on paper its a good system imo, the problem arises on starcraft being an incredibly taxing game since series have the potential to last hours and on that note I do agree with you. Perhaps if the games were spaced out so the LB semi's and grand finals would be on sunday it would work out much better but of course nobody will want that and the community will ultimately complain again.
I don't really see why people wouldn't want the games to be more spread out.. MLG already has the space for the weekend since Halo is there.. and it allows them to broadcast more of the matches this way(they will just put holds on good matches, they did it for most of the weekend this way where you would watch 2 of the matches from the same round)
It's good for spectators, it's good for the players, and it allows players to catch their breath... The loser's bracket players would still have a disadvantage..(which i think is a good thing, just to clarify)
|
I don't really understand your argument here, at least for rule 6. It just that you don't like it? It makes perfect sense to put someone at a greater disadvantage in a match against the person they lost to than another player, especially if they 2-0'd you, which this format takes into account. This also rewards the LB player by not just setting aside their games won before vs the oppenent that knocked them out (obviously still at a disadvantage since they already lost.)
It seems like your arguement goes:
You: "I don't see a reason why the LB player should be at a greater disadvantage vs the player that knocked them out of the WB"
Response: "Because the winner has beaten them already"
You: "....not good enough."
I guess? I mean it seems like a perfectly valid reason to me.
|
I think a straight up Double elimination would be alot better
|
On October 17 2010 07:57 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:49 Anther wrote: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.
Of course there is lots of variance and luck involved in the seeding process. But then when two players face each other the point of the match is to figure out who is the better player in this direct match-up (not player A > player B and player B > player C => therefore player A > player C). If you wanted to factor in the overall tournament performance, then a group + points system should be used, which is clearly not the case in an elimination based tournament. It's mostly about matching players against each other and figuring out who performs better in this direct match-up. There are some exceptions to this idea in the MLG system, like giving an advantage to the winners' bracket player in some match-ups, but that has no influence on this specific example.
And for that purpose this rule ist optimal and reduces variance because all games that were played between the two players within the tournament are factored in.
I'm not saying this system is necessarily fair, just saying that the rule serves its purpose, and whether you consider an elimination based system fair is up to you. Personally, I think it is fair that a rule helps that somebody needs to beat me more than 50% of the time during the tournament in order to eliminate me. (otherwise I could go 3:2 to someone and get eliminated by him because I went 2:0, 1:2 which I would not consider fair.)
|
Just adding my post here saying I also disagree with the special rules, for the same reasons explained here.
|
On October 17 2010 09:32 Logo wrote:
SC2 is still an unproven game for them. That's probably why they don't make more time for it (which would allow for the loser bracket player to rest). If it continues to generate good support and turn-outs I'm sure we'll see the quality of the tournament improving.
Just look at how much better DC was to Raleigh (which was by no means shabby itself).
More likely they need the PCs for the WoW tourny, which starts right after the SCII ones. Jesus Christ MLG, spend your 42 million on a larger prize pool (for incentives to get even bigger names to play) and in soundproof booths, actual chairs for spectators, and more PCs so you can do this 3 day thing.
|
On October 17 2010 10:05 throttled wrote:
It seems like your arguement goes:
You: "I don't see a reason why the LB player should be at a greater disadvantage vs the player that knocked them out of the WB"
Response: "Because the winner has beaten them already"
You: "....not good enough."
I guess? I mean it seems like a perfectly valid reason to me. Not quite. The reasoning is more "Your path to the finals of the tournament should not be more or less difficult depending on whether you have the good fortune to face somebody you've beaten once before or the misfortune to face somebody you've lost to before."
Other people have said, "The benefit of this approach is that it makes every match played between the players matter, and makes for more grudge-y matches, and that's worth making some people's path easier or harder just because they happened to run into someone they faced before."
The problem with your summary was that you failed to explain why what the two sides said matters. That is, you didn't say why it matters that you can be at a disadvantage if you run into the person who put you into losers, or why it matters that the winner has beaten them already. You didn't do justice to the arguments on either side.
|
I think the current format needs some work. On one hand I love that all the matches happen within almost one day, on the other I think it's a result of MLG trying to fit SC2 into a format that works for their other games, rather than trying to adapt their format to work for SC2. I think back to other competitions where players step out of their booths after playing a series against one other pro, players that have practiced specificly for that one match for 12 hours a day, and they end it drenched in sweat and mentally exhausted. Given I'm talking about broodwar but SC2 is comparible in the way that it taxes you a lot more than mass gaming something like Halo. I don't think this format will work in the long term.
At the same time it's a format that rewards stamina more than other competitions that center around SC2. The players making it far like Select and Huk are well known for being mass gamers on ladder and generally maintain a higher score. Nony also recently went nuts on ladder from what I understand. In the end decision making suffered, Nony lost with pheonixes due to fatigue, Huk was wiped enough to toss a mothership at select and hope for the best, and Select showed obvious signs of fatigue in the finals. but all of them faired better than the other players. It reminds me more of an eating contest than a starcraft competition, but Idra got to rest comfortably until the finals. I don't see the loser's bracket player ever winning the finals with this format unless he's way better than the other guy. I do like that it all happens within a short time, but that may not work for starcraft.
|
If enough people talk about it, I'm sure someone from MLG will tell everyone why it's like this. I remember a long time ago they did. I tried looking but alas, I couldn't find it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
