|
On November 09 2010 17:08 Pyroteq wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 16:58 Risen wrote:
It's pointless arguing with someone who refuses to see the merit of an argument. It's also clear you've never been in a tournament for ANYTHING.
Having advanced in WB and LB in multiple gaming/wrestling/volleyball tournaments I can see from first hand experience how borked MLG's system is compared to standard double elim.
Explain to me why since double elimination's inception long, long ago the standard format has been maintained and extended series play has been an outlier please. LMFAO. Since you want to compare e-peens I help run the biggest game tournaments in Australia on a national level and I was a WCG Grand Finalist for Halo 2 with many other notable tournament results. If player A has beaten player B 3-2, it makes no sense that player B should proceed through the bracket. I see the merit of your argument, however from a competitive level the extended series provides more accurate results. I'm pretty sure MLG know what they're doing. What pisses me off the most is how most the posts I read here only seem to care about an "exciting" finals. As a player, I don't care how anti-climatic the finals are, I care that the better team wins. If the better team only has to win 3 games, I don't care. The tournament brackets shouldn't be screwed up to cater to less players just because viewers want the finals to be exciting. Besides, sometimes the extended series rule ends up providing an even better grand finals match. In previous MLG's teams have come out of the losers bracket with enormous comebacks winning the grand finals which makes it 10X's more exciting.
Great... let's use WCG as an example. If extended series is so great why do they use standard double elimination as opposed to extended series play?
|
On November 09 2010 17:09 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 16:58 Reptarem wrote:
I agree, but in a tournament "fatigue" should not be a variable. Just because a player may be tired, it doesn't mean it should be taken into account. Players should have trained harder OR just not have lost the first match... I'm just stating the rule is made to be fair and it is because it benefits the better player. Yes. Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 16:58 Risen wrote:On November 09 2010 16:54 Pyroteq wrote:On November 09 2010 16:48 Risen wrote:
I would also like to point out how difficult it is and how idiotic it is to expect someone to win 4 games while someone else must only win two. Let me stress how HARD it is to win 4 while your opponent must only win 2 within a short time period when games are being played back to back. What would be more fair, is if MLG moved to a true double elim/triple elim hybrid and eliminated the extended play.
So instead of starting off 2-0, the players start 0-0 in a fresh Bo3. If the loser of the first Bo3 wins the second Bo3, they play a 3rd Bo3 to decide who advances. Ummm, then maybe the player B shouldn't have lost 2-0 in the previous series? If player B lost 2-1 in the previous series than player A only has a 1 game advantage. It's pointless arguing with someone who refuses to see the merit of an argument. It's also clear you've never been in a tournament for ANYTHING. Having advanced in WB and LB in multiple gaming/wrestling/volleyball tournaments I can see from first hand experience how borked MLG's system is compared to standard double elim. Explain to me why since double elimination's inception long, long ago the standard format has been maintained and extended series play has been an outlier please. No. MLG's system is effectively standard. The LB player beating the WB player twice is really not that different from an extended series. The WB player hasn't lost a single series while the LB player is already down one series. If they've already played each other then it's just an extended series. Are two Bo3's really that different than one Bo7? The WB player has to lose twice to be knocked out. It is a double elimination tournament after all..
Yes it is completely different. with the extended series rule, a player could go 0-5 in his last 5 games at a point in the tournament and yet still be in. if anyone else in the tournament were to go 0-4 they would be eliminated.
they should be treated as 2 different series.
A player that has lost first game DAY 1. could claw his win back into top 8. DAY 3 rolls around and he is suddenly down 2 games in a bo7 series.
|
Another example,
Player A goes 2-5 in his last 7 games
Player B goes 5-2 in his last 7 games
Player A advances but player B goes home? sounds fair to me. =/
|
Double Elimination is just not good...
Online prelims (ladder, torunament, whatever) --> Group stage --> "small" Grid.
Most of Day1 is for the large part just unessesary from a spectator point of view. Yes, maybe/probably there will be 1 or 2 upsets on Day1 but for the most Part it's just:
Good/Known Player >> "Kinda good ladder player".
Waste of time.
|
On November 09 2010 17:13 Risen wrote:
Great... let's use WCG as an example. If extended series is so great why do they use standard double elimination as opposed to extended series play?
Unless they've changed their bracket system in recent years they don't. They use a retarded pool system that turns into single elimination which results in inaccurate results and good teams getting knocked out early.
Ok you guys, explain how Jinro having the extended series vs TT1 as opposed to a whole extra life (e.g. Idra in MLG DC) is fair on Jinro. In this case he's actually being punished for having beaten TT1 already because he doesn't get the extra life, he only gets the benefit of the extended series which is worse than what it would normally be (two Bo3s, with loser having to win both)
Extended series cannot logically be fair because it disadvantages the winner in some cases (final) and advantages them in other cases (losers bracket), if one is fair then the other can't be and vice versa. Simple logic dictates that it can't be fair.
QED, it's not fair.
Actually, Jinro does still have the advantage. If he won 2-0 he's up 2 games. He only has to win 2 more games which is essentially the same as winning one best of 3.
If TT1 had won the next 2 games TT1 is now 2-2 which is the same as winning 1 best of 3, now he needs to win 2 more games to win the next best of 3 since he's in the LB.
If TT1 had come into the grand final 2-1 with Jinro he'd need to win 3 games instead of 4. Jinro can still lose 2 games safely (the same as losing a best of 3), which is his "life". This also means the more consistent player of the 2 will win the grand final.
|
On November 09 2010 17:07 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:01 jalstar wrote:On November 09 2010 15:27 Kazang wrote:
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
Well put. Simple math trumps "player fatigue" any day. Nice one liner, very thoughtful! Simple math? How about this. Player A is 10-5 and has advanced to Round 5 of WB where he loses in Round 6 0-2. Player B lost to player A in Round 1 of WB due to a string of bad luck. Player B is 22-2 having advanced all the way to LB Round 10 and will now face player A in Round 11 of the LB. You're saying the 10-7 player should have the extended series advantage over the player who is 22-2?
Yes, obviously, since the 10-7 guy has played better players and has a winning record against player B.
|
On November 09 2010 17:24 Velr wrote:
Double Elimination is just not good...
Online prelims (ladder, torunament, whatever) --> Group stage --> "small" Grid.
Most of Day1 is for the large part just unessesary from a spectator point of view. Yes, maybe/probably there will be 1 or 2 upsets on Day1 but for the most Part it's just:
Good/Known Player >> "Kinda good ladder player".
Waste of time.
Double elim is generally considered to be more "fair" than single elimination even with qualifier stages etcetc because you can have someone goof and still come back. It also makes determinging 3rd/4th place much easier
|
On November 09 2010 17:11 Risen wrote:
Yes... they are very different. In one player B can win the second series 2-1 and advance... in the other he can win 3 and lose 2 and go home.
Edit: MLGs system is NOT standard
The second possibility is the reason MLG does an extended series. It's designed to advantage the better player by rolling the second series into a larger Bo7. I'll grant you that MLG is a variation on the standard double elimination rules. This doesn't make it bad though.
|
I guess it depends on if you value BO3/5 strategy or the individual sets higher.
In my world, it takes additional skill and adds a lot more depth to play in the BO(x) format, and a win in a BO(x) should simply count as 1-0 - thus counting a BO(x) win almost equally no matter if you drop a game or not.
I belive that many players can take a game from the best of the best, but winning a BO 3-5 is a whole different matter.
It's a game of incomplete information, which adds a certain element of randomness (that we can remedy to a degree), but just like poker isn't decided on one hand, neither should SC2 be decided on a BO1-basis IMO.
|
On November 09 2010 17:25 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:07 Risen wrote:On November 09 2010 17:01 jalstar wrote:On November 09 2010 15:27 Kazang wrote:
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
Well put. Simple math trumps "player fatigue" any day. Nice one liner, very thoughtful! Simple math? How about this. Player A is 10-5 and has advanced to Round 5 of WB where he loses in Round 6 0-2. Player B lost to player A in Round 1 of WB due to a string of bad luck. Player B is 22-2 having advanced all the way to LB Round 10 and will now face player A in Round 11 of the LB. You're saying the 10-7 player should have the extended series advantage over the player who is 22-2? Yes, obviously, since the 10-7 guy has played better players and has a winning record against player B.
You can't make that generalization and say he has faced better players because they are all different people of different skills. Also, while player A has been going 2-1 against his opponents, player B has been going 2-0 against those same opponents player A is going 2-1 against.
Edit: What I'm saying is that player B has faced these same "better" players and MORE and is beating them more easily than player A.
|
On November 09 2010 16:59 Wargizmo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 16:41 Reptarem wrote:On November 09 2010 15:27 Kazang wrote:
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
This post is ABSOLUTELY correct. Those who think that the rule is indeed UNFAIR must read this, otherwise, if they still think it is unfair, they are in fact retarded. I like MLG's system of double elimination, however I think most people are complaining because they don't understand the system. Should change the poll to see whether people want the original format or a new single elimination one... Ok you guys, explain how Jinro having the extended series vs TT1 as opposed to a whole extra life (e.g. Idra in MLG DC) is fair on Jinro. In this case he's actually being punished for having beaten TT1 already because he doesn't get the extra life, he only gets the benefit of the extended series which is worse than what it would normally be (two Bo3s, with loser having to win both)
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
You are just so far wrong you cannot even look at from the right perspective. Players are not being "punished" for anything. Stop thinking about a "series" and think about who is winning games, as winning games is what determines who wins. Not when those wins occur.
The score was Jinro 2-1 TTOne becasue that is what the score was. TTOne has already shown he can compete with Jinro by winning that single game. Just becasue it happened 2 hours previously does not mean it suddenly does not count.
Think of the entire Jinro Vs TTOne set of matches as one series, the concept of a series is bad in general as it doesn't take into account the number of games, but for the sake of this comparison it will do as people seem locked into the idea of a "series" being a separate unique event.
Jinro still had to win a bo7 the same as TTOne would have had to do to win the tournament, the first 3 matches were played in the upper bracket final and the score was 2-1, the "series" continued in the Grand Final from where the upper bracket final left off. The score carries over, the wins and losses of both players still count. Jinro is not being "punished", the score is just a reflection of what happened, he lost one game to TTOne so that game still stands.
As for the case of SelecT being "punished" for having to play so many games, this also a wrong view of the situation. The problem is not the extended series rule, or the double elimination format it was fact that MLG rushed the games and played too many games on one day. Playing more games should not be a disadvantage ever, if it is that is the fault of the tournament schedule, not the format.
Playing in the lower bracket (which is what it should be called, not "losers") is not a disadvantage or a "punishment" for losing a game. It is the method with which the best player and the tournament placings is determined. The purpose of the lower bracket is to give players the opportunity to play the full spectrum of players once they get beaten by better performing players.
TLO playing HuK wasn't a "punishment" for losing in the upper bracket, it was a game to determine 6th place. Every game goes towards a players eventual placing to give the most accurate representation of performance with the minimum amount of games. If a player is the lower bracket and has to play more games that is becasue each player has to prove he better than the others, you do that by playing games. The upper or winners bracket does this by proxy, eg if Jinro beats TTone and TTOne beats Painuser, Jinro is ranked higher than Painuser becasue he beat the player than beat him. The lower bracket does it directly by playing more games becasue it has no other bracket to draw results from.
|
On November 09 2010 17:00 Risen wrote:
[...]
The point of a double elimination tournament is to give players TWO chances in case their previous play (loss) did not show their true potential. Extended series play gets rid of this
Risen I'm trying to understand your argument. Doesn't extended series advantage the better player by preventing the possibility of someone going 3-2 against someone else but still getting sent home?
|
On November 09 2010 17:33 Kazang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 16:59 Wargizmo wrote:On November 09 2010 16:41 Reptarem wrote:On November 09 2010 15:27 Kazang wrote:
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
This post is ABSOLUTELY correct. Those who think that the rule is indeed UNFAIR must read this, otherwise, if they still think it is unfair, they are in fact retarded. I like MLG's system of double elimination, however I think most people are complaining because they don't understand the system. Should change the poll to see whether people want the original format or a new single elimination one... Ok you guys, explain how Jinro having the extended series vs TT1 as opposed to a whole extra life (e.g. Idra in MLG DC) is fair on Jinro. In this case he's actually being punished for having beaten TT1 already because he doesn't get the extra life, he only gets the benefit of the extended series which is worse than what it would normally be (two Bo3s, with loser having to win both) This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are just so far wrong you cannot even look at from the right perspective. Players are not being "punished" for anything. Stop thinking about a "series" and think about who is winning games, as winning games is what determines who wins. Not when those wins occur.The score was Jinro 2-1 TTOne becasue that is what the score was. TTOne has already shown he can compete with Jinro by winning that single game. Just becasue it happened 2 hours previously does not mean it suddenly does not count. Think of the entire Jinro Vs TTOne set of matches as one series, the concept of a series is bad in general as it doesn't take into account the number of games, but for the sake of this comparison it will do as people seem locked into the idea of a "series" being a separate unique event. Jinro still had to win a bo7 the same as TTOne would have had to do to win the tournament, the first 3 matches were played in the upper bracket final and the score was 2-1, the "series" continued in the Grand Final from where the upper bracket final left off. The score carries over, the wins and losses of both players still count. Jinro is not being "punished", the score is just a reflection of what happened, he lost one game to TTOne so that game still stands. As for the case of SelecT being "punished" for having to play so many games, this also a wrong view of the situation. The problem is not the extended series rule, or the double elimination format it was fact that MLG rushed the games and played too many games on one day. Playing more games should not be a disadvantage ever, if it is that is the fault of the tournament schedule, not the format. Playing in the lower bracket (which is what it should be called, not "losers") is not a disadvantage or a "punishment" for losing a game. It is the method with which the best player and the tournament placings is determined. The purpose of the lower bracket is to give players the opportunity to play the full spectrum of players once they get beaten by better performing players. TLO playing HuK wasn't a "punishment" for losing in the upper bracket, it was a game to determine 6th place. Every game goes towards a players eventual placing to give the most accurate representation of performance with the minimum amount of games. If a player is the lower bracket and has to play more games that is becasue each player has to prove he better than the others, you do that by playing games. The upper or winners bracket does this by proxy, eg if Jinro beats TTone and TTOne beats Painuser, Jinro is ranked higher than Painuser becasue he beat the player than beat him. The lower bracket does it directly by playing more games becasue it has no other bracket to draw results from.
Well thought out post. I'd simply argue that while scheduling should never get in the way of a tournament, this is a known disadvantage of any double elimination tournament and if you're going to run a double elim tournament you SHOULD factor in the amount of matches that will need to be played (run on gogogo)
|
On November 09 2010 17:28 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:25 jalstar wrote:On November 09 2010 17:07 Risen wrote:On November 09 2010 17:01 jalstar wrote:On November 09 2010 15:27 Kazang wrote:
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
Well put. Simple math trumps "player fatigue" any day. Nice one liner, very thoughtful! Simple math? How about this. Player A is 10-5 and has advanced to Round 5 of WB where he loses in Round 6 0-2. Player B lost to player A in Round 1 of WB due to a string of bad luck. Player B is 22-2 having advanced all the way to LB Round 10 and will now face player A in Round 11 of the LB. You're saying the 10-7 player should have the extended series advantage over the player who is 22-2? Yes, obviously, since the 10-7 guy has played better players and has a winning record against player B. You can't make that generalization and say he has faced better players because they are all different people of different skills. Also, while player A has been going 2-1 against his opponents, player B has been going 2-0 against those same opponents player A is going 2-1 against.
I can't say that the players in the winner's bracket are better than the players in the loser's bracket? That makes no sense.
Anyway, you're always going to have some problems with overall records in double elimination. That's why group stage into single elimination is the way to go, and the most successful tournaments (OSL, World Cup, UEFA Champion's League, etc) go this route.
|
On November 09 2010 17:34 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:00 Risen wrote:
[...]
The point of a double elimination tournament is to give players TWO chances in case their previous play (loss) did not show their true potential. Extended series play gets rid of this Risen I'm trying to understand your argument. Doesn't extended series advantage the better player by preventing the possibility of someone going 3-2 against someone else but still getting sent home?
Hmmm... yes. You misunderstood my post. Probably worded badly on my part.
I'm saying player B who lost earlier can win 3 and lose 2 in the LB and be sent home.
|
The whole double elimination is a bad format.I don't even watch MLG due to this.
I'm sorry if this just sound as bashing or QQ but the format make the tournament boring.
Just make group stages and them single elimination.
|
On November 09 2010 17:35 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:28 Risen wrote:On November 09 2010 17:25 jalstar wrote:On November 09 2010 17:07 Risen wrote:On November 09 2010 17:01 jalstar wrote:On November 09 2010 15:27 Kazang wrote:
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
Well put. Simple math trumps "player fatigue" any day. Nice one liner, very thoughtful! Simple math? How about this. Player A is 10-5 and has advanced to Round 5 of WB where he loses in Round 6 0-2. Player B lost to player A in Round 1 of WB due to a string of bad luck. Player B is 22-2 having advanced all the way to LB Round 10 and will now face player A in Round 11 of the LB. You're saying the 10-7 player should have the extended series advantage over the player who is 22-2? Yes, obviously, since the 10-7 guy has played better players and has a winning record against player B. You can't make that generalization and say he has faced better players because they are all different people of different skills. Also, while player A has been going 2-1 against his opponents, player B has been going 2-0 against those same opponents player A is going 2-1 against. I can't say that the players in the winner's bracket are better than the players in the loser's bracket? That makes no sense. Anyway, you're always going to have some problems with overall records in double elimination. That's why group stage into single elimination is the way to go, and the most successful tournaments (OSL, World Cup, UEFA Champion's League, etc) go this route.
I 100% agree that group play into single elim is the way to go. As for the winner's bracket people being better I agree (somewhat) which is why I'm saying player B is showing he's better than player A because he's 2-0ing the WB people that fall to the LB while player A only went 2-1 against them.
At this point I feel like we're arguing what-ifs and neither of us is going to be swayed. Different viewpoints and both opinions are valid. I feel that having to fight up through the LB is enough of a disadvantage, you think it's unfair for a player to possibly be eliminated while having a vX record of 3-2 (or even 2-2).
|
On November 09 2010 17:41 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:34 space_yes wrote:On November 09 2010 17:00 Risen wrote:
[...]
The point of a double elimination tournament is to give players TWO chances in case their previous play (loss) did not show their true potential. Extended series play gets rid of this Risen I'm trying to understand your argument. Doesn't extended series advantage the better player by preventing the possibility of someone going 3-2 against someone else but still getting sent home? Hmmm... yes. You misunderstood my post. Probably worded badly on my part. I'm saying player B who lost earlier can win 3 and lose 2 in the LB and be sent home.
Can you give an example? This is the scenario I'm envisioning..
WB:
A > B
2:0
They both meet again later in the LB:
A < B
1:2
But player A gets sent home even though his net record verse B is 3:2. My understanding was that the extended series rule prevents this. Why is standard double elimination comparatively better?
|
On November 09 2010 17:45 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:35 jalstar wrote:On November 09 2010 17:28 Risen wrote:On November 09 2010 17:25 jalstar wrote:On November 09 2010 17:07 Risen wrote:On November 09 2010 17:01 jalstar wrote:On November 09 2010 15:27 Kazang wrote:
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
Well put. Simple math trumps "player fatigue" any day. Nice one liner, very thoughtful! Simple math? How about this. Player A is 10-5 and has advanced to Round 5 of WB where he loses in Round 6 0-2. Player B lost to player A in Round 1 of WB due to a string of bad luck. Player B is 22-2 having advanced all the way to LB Round 10 and will now face player A in Round 11 of the LB. You're saying the 10-7 player should have the extended series advantage over the player who is 22-2? Yes, obviously, since the 10-7 guy has played better players and has a winning record against player B. You can't make that generalization and say he has faced better players because they are all different people of different skills. Also, while player A has been going 2-1 against his opponents, player B has been going 2-0 against those same opponents player A is going 2-1 against. I can't say that the players in the winner's bracket are better than the players in the loser's bracket? That makes no sense. Anyway, you're always going to have some problems with overall records in double elimination. That's why group stage into single elimination is the way to go, and the most successful tournaments (OSL, World Cup, UEFA Champion's League, etc) go this route. I 100% agree that group play into single elim is the way to go. As for the winner's bracket people being better I agree (somewhat) which is why I'm saying player B is showing he's better than player A because he's 2-0ing the WB people that fall to the LB while player A only went 2-1 against them. At this point I feel like we're arguing what-ifs and neither of us is going to be swayed. Different viewpoints and both opinions are valid. I feel that having to fight up through the LB is enough of a disadvantage, you think it's unfair for a player to possibly be eliminated while having a vX record of 3-2 (or even 2-2).
Group play into single elim has its problems too. like...
A stacked group. only 2 players will advance.
A group of terrible players. 2 of those terrible players will advance
As we've seen in the GSL there were some terrible players there because they got "lucky" groups.
|
Player A wins first set 2-0. Player B wins 3 in a row in their second set, but loses 2, resulting in a 3-2 loss in their second set.
Edit: This is just me being bad at getting my message across. Hopefully the example above shows you what I mean
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
