|
On November 09 2010 20:29 Nouar wrote:
Perhaps, but you shouldn't ONLY look at the head to head record, it's not a 1v1 but a tournament, and your famed player has lost other games besides this one. Else he wouldn't be in the loser's bracket.
Ignoring them and only looking at head to head record in a full pledged bracket is not the way to go.
It is a 1v1 tournament. How else are you supposed to compare two players? Furthermore one of the players has already lost to the other. I'm not defending double elimination >>> everything else. I'm merely trying to explain the extended series rule to people. Not many people seem to understand its purpose and seem to think adding additional BoX is the way to go but that actually undermines the confidence in the tournament's result.
|
Ok, as a competitive player if I was knocked out of a tournament by a player that I had beat 2:0 then lost 2:1 I'd be kind of upset. At the same time, I wouldn't be proud of myself if I progressed through a tournament knowing I knocked a player out who was better than me. (Yes, believe it or not, some of us competitive gamers actually have integrity.)
Extended series make this a non-issue because the BETTER and more CONSISTENT player wins, not the player who got lucky. It means every game means something, not just the series as a whole.
The system works fine across ANY game. It doesn't matter what game it is, whether it's Tekken, SC2, Halo or Call of Duty, the maths and logic behind it is exactly the same.
|
HOW IS A PLAYER CONSISTENT AND BETTER WHEN HE FUCKING LOST TWO SERIES WHEN THE ONE KNOCKED OUT IS DOWN 3-4 HAVING WON EVERYTHING ELSE ? (and having won *more* series since he got tossed in LB earlier)
Fuck, do your math ?
and read your private messages.
|
On November 09 2010 20:17 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 20:08 space_yes wrote:God dammit I had to check this thread one more time.. On November 09 2010 19:43 Nouar wrote:Many of you guys don't realize we have two cases here, in BOTH OF WHICH the extended series has played. REGULAR LB GAME : BOTH gamers lost one series thus being in LB. THEN they should be equal, because if not, A (who beat B once) can continue the tournament having lost one series, and having lost another one to B the second time. GRAND FINALS : ONLY the guy from LB has lost a series, yet the same rule apply, it's like he virtually was sent in the losers bracket while never having lost. And it's obviously unfair to him. Either keep the extended only for the grand finals, either keep it for regular LB (and i'm against it) and make it 2 bo3 in the finals. If you have BOTH, then it's bullshit. On November 09 2010 17:50 space_yes wrote:On November 09 2010 17:41 Risen wrote: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? This is from LB. A is sent home cause they both lost one series in the Wb, BOTH OF THEM, then A lost ANOTHER bo3 in the loser's. Thus he lost twice, while B only lost one in the WB, then won all his games in the losers bracket, making his total score positive against EVERYONE BUT B, whom he is 2-3. Does being ONE MAP behind deserves to go home in a double elim tournament ? Depends on the path taken. All of the players A beats before dropping to the LB are undefeated. B would also have to beat some of those players to reach A. The system must must then evaluate who is better, A or B. Is it really logical to throw out the previous results when the tournament exists to find the better player? To determine the better player between two players it considers the aggregate number of games. If we play two Bo5 and I win 3-0 then you win 3-2 are you the better player simply b/c you won the second set or am I the better player b/c I'm 6-2 verse you? I would say I'm the better player b/c I pwned you 6-2. Then it should also take into account that you play far more relaxed in WB since you still have a wildcard, whereas in LB your life is on the line and every match is tense to the max. (you wouldnt be 6-2 but 5-3 though, do your math.) B in the LB, could have beaten the exact same players you tossed in the LB, mind you. And then several others since he has more matches. You should also take into account the fact that the further you go in the tournament, the more it "counts"... Is winning the first round more important than winning the LB final ? No... So you might win 3-0 in the first round, but I might win 3-2 in the LB final or semi final. That's having good nerves and being solid, and being able to play under pressure. If I follow your logic it should be taken into account, and a win in the far rounds of the tournament should be worth more than in the beginning, be it WB or LB. Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 18:32 space_yes wrote:
That doesn't make sense. The whole point of not considering it as an entirely different event is the to prevent the scenario I outlined. If A gets knocked down to the LB bracket then B could only hit A if B crawled up the LB to hit A. How far B crawls up depends on how far A went in the WB before getting knocked down. The extended series rule accounts for the paths taken.
You don't consider the second set played between the players in the LB as a Bo5 when the standard sets are Bo3 b/c the following scenario could result:
WB:
A > B
2:1
LB:
A < B
1:2
Net record between A and B:
A = B
3:3
Following your logic wo/extended series A would get sent home even though they tied. This is why MLG has the extended series as Bo7. The extended series rule is designed to find the best player; your example would fail to do this b/c of the possibility of a tie.
The net record between A and B at the end of the tournament is A > B 4:3 and B goes home. The math behind my argument is solid. It's not a question of perspective.
EDIT: clarity A would get sent home being 3-3 BUT having lost one best of 3 to someone else, whereas B is 3-3, having not lost to anyone else. What is the problem ? The problem is that they are tied so the system is unable to evaluate who is better. If you and I play 10 games and we go 5-5 are you the better played simply b/c you won the 10th game? No, cause you lost to someone else and I didn't. So you actually have a worst record.
Double elim format does take this into account b/c where you drop from the WB determines how far you have to go in the LB bracket. If you drop late in the tournament you don't have many LB games.
As for my example it was an example between you and I not in the tournament context. It's merely to point out the ridiculousness of allowing one player to advance when their records are tied or to make a statement about which player is better.
|
On November 09 2010 20:37 space_yes wrote:
As for my example it was an example between you and I not in the tournament context. It's merely to point out the ridiculousness of allowing one player to advance when their records are tied or to make a statement about which player is better.
In group stages, you might have lost to someone and advance while he does not, cause he lost to others and not you. Does that shock you ?
Why does it shock you in double elim, since this is the same case ? He lost more than you, he's out, you're not. Simple.
|
On November 09 2010 20:35 Nouar wrote:
HOW IS A PLAYER CONSISTENT AND BETTER WHEN HE FUCKING LOST TWO SERIES WHEN THE ONE KNOCKED OUT IS DOWN 3-4 HAVING WON EVERYTHING ELSE ? (and having won *more* series since he got tossed in LB earlier)
Fuck, do your math ?
and read your private messages.
Winning more games against players the system judges are of comparatively less skill vs winning games against undefeated players the system judges are of comparatively greater skill. You decide. Remember, where you lose in the WB determines where you're placed in the LB.
Any tournament where A > B 4:3 and B advances is bullshit. Justify it however you want..
|
On November 09 2010 20:42 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 20:35 Nouar wrote:
HOW IS A PLAYER CONSISTENT AND BETTER WHEN HE FUCKING LOST TWO SERIES WHEN THE ONE KNOCKED OUT IS DOWN 3-4 HAVING WON EVERYTHING ELSE ? (and having won *more* series since he got tossed in LB earlier)
Fuck, do your math ?
and read your private messages. Winning more games against players the system judges are of comparatively less skill vs winning games against undefeated players the system judges are of comparatively greater skill. You decide. Remember, where you lose in the WB determines where you're placed in the LB. Any tournament where A > B 4:3 and B advances is bullshit. Justify it however you want..
Group stages are bullshit ? 
Yes, where you lose in the WB already plays a role. This role is enough, winning 1 game in WB already equals winning 2 in the LB, no need to add another malus.
counter-strike map, best of 3. I lose first map 16-2, I win second one 16-14, the third map doesn't start at 12-0 for the other team..... (round difference) it starts at 0-0. I win third map 16-14, I go through, but i'm down 44-34 in rounds. Yet I still go through. Happens everyday.
The unit is the map. In starcraft 2, in a bracket, the unit is a best of 3. You don't continue a counter strike match by starting a map with 10-0. Never shocked anyone....
|
On November 09 2010 20:30 space_yes wrote:
I'm leaving my original post as is ^ ^ but you get the idea.
I take the first set 3-0, then lose 2-3. Overall I'm 5-3..
But this happens in countless other tournaments and nobody gives a damn. Take the Stanley Cup. If the Avalanche are 4-2 against the Red Wings in the regular season, and they meet in the playoffs, the Avalanche are not 2 up in the series and I don't hear complaints about that. The football World Cup has group stages, where the top 2 qualify for the knockout stages. The top team in the group may have beaten the 2nd placed team, but they don't get any advantage if the two teams meet again in the semi final, and there is nobody pushing for them to have such an advantage.
If MLG want players from the winners' bracket to have an advantage, then as I said, they should just a give 1-0 headstart in a losers' bracket BO5 in every game where one player got further in the winners' bracket. That way all players from the winners' bracket get an advantage, rather than only those who happen to meet somebody they already played. And if they only want it to apply to players who meet the same players again, then the absolute worst that could happen is you go out tied at 3-3 with the guy who knocked you out, and at that point, I don't think you have a valid complaint, because there's no reason for you to stay in the tournament. You have lost two series, and you're not being knocked out by somebody against whom you have a winning record.
|
Why does everyone suddenly want to count maps across multiple bo3 series? I thought the reason we played many games in a series was that we didn't want a lucky spawn or build order win to decide an entire series. If someone goes 2:1 for four bo3s and another guy goes 2:0 four times and 0:2 two times, I'd say the first guy is the better player even if map-wise they are equal.
With extended series, you are letting a guy who lost a bo3 and won a bo7 advance over a guy who won everything else except the bo7. That doesn't sound like double elimination for the eliminated guy, and I don't think this system should be called double elimination. At least the normal double elimination IS actually consistent as long as you consider each series independent.
|
I didn't read the whole thing, but they should reset in grand finals and whomever came from the WB gets to chose map first, after that whomever loses choses. I think having the initial map choice is fair enough for winning the WB.
|
On November 09 2010 20:34 Pyroteq wrote:
Ok, as a competitive player if I was knocked out of a tournament by a player that I had beat 2:0 then lost 2:1 I'd be kind of upset. At the same time, I wouldn't be proud of myself if I progressed through a tournament knowing I knocked a player out who was better than me. (Yes, believe it or not, some of us competitive gamers actually have integrity.)
Extended series make this a non-issue because the BETTER and more CONSISTENT player wins, not the player who got lucky. It means every game means something, not just the series as a whole.
The system works fine across ANY game. It doesn't matter what game it is, whether it's Tekken, SC2, Halo or Call of Duty, the maths and logic behind it is exactly the same.
Quoting this becasue it is correct and also reposting my post from earlier as apparently people are still posing questions it quite clearly answers.
----------
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.
|
The whole rule is just completely bullshit. A player should only have to be eliminated twice.
|
Quoting and reposting stuff that isn't true doesn't make them any more correct. Both those posts just ignore that both of the players have lost a series and are therefore on equal ground.
On November 09 2010 21:07 Kazang wrote:
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.
Yeah out of the hundreds of tournaments using double elimination, only MLG does it right.
|
On November 09 2010 21:16 Teddyman wrote:
Quoting and reposting stuff that isn't true doesn't make them any more correct. Both those posts just ignore that both of the players have lost a series and are therefore on equal ground.
But who did they lose them to?
|
On November 09 2010 21:18 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 21:16 Teddyman wrote:
Quoting and reposting stuff that isn't true doesn't make them any more correct. Both those posts just ignore that both of the players have lost a series and are therefore on equal ground. But who did they lose them to?
Well A won over B and then lost against him. And lost another game.
B lost against A, and won all his other games, including one against A.
|
On November 09 2010 21:20 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 21:18 robertdinh wrote:On November 09 2010 21:16 Teddyman wrote:
Quoting and reposting stuff that isn't true doesn't make them any more correct. Both those posts just ignore that both of the players have lost a series and are therefore on equal ground. But who did they lose them to? Well A won over B and then lost against him. And lost another game. B lost against A, and won all his other games, including one against A.
So if B consistently loses to A then A is the stronger 1v1 player in the AvsB match-up.
If you want to argue subjectively who is better by how they would have done against other players, then what you are looking for is round robin play.
In MLG's format if A lost to another player to get sent to the lower bracket, after already sending B to the lower bracket, then A lost to someone that advanced further than A or B have in the upper bracket. Whereas B lost to someone that only went as far as A did, and then lost again in the lower to A.
|
On November 09 2010 21:22 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 21:20 Nouar wrote:On November 09 2010 21:18 robertdinh wrote:On November 09 2010 21:16 Teddyman wrote:
Quoting and reposting stuff that isn't true doesn't make them any more correct. Both those posts just ignore that both of the players have lost a series and are therefore on equal ground. But who did they lose them to? Well A won over B and then lost against him. And lost another game. B lost against A, and won all his other games, including one against A. So if B consistently loses to A then A is the stronger 1v1 player in the AvsB match-up. If you want to argue subjectively who is better by how they would have done against other players, then what you are looking for is round robin play.
No, what YOU are looking for is single elimination tournament.
If it is double elimination, you have a fresh chance to come back, having lost one series.
In a regular double elim, A beats B, then B beats A in loser bracket, how is A consistently better ?
|
Wow it seems I need to explain everything if I want to keep posting in this thread, which might be a reason there's not many people left arguing here. In just about every system except single elimination, you can advance even if you have a losing record against someone. Group stages? You can lose to someone and still advance while they don't. Swiss rounds? You can lose to someone and end up way higher. Double elimination? You can tie someone in series (possibly end up losing on maps) and advance. In each of the cases, the fact that you did better against other people in the tournament justifies you advancing over your opponent who beat you or tied with you.
|
On November 09 2010 21:25 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 21:22 robertdinh wrote:On November 09 2010 21:20 Nouar wrote:On November 09 2010 21:18 robertdinh wrote:On November 09 2010 21:16 Teddyman wrote:
Quoting and reposting stuff that isn't true doesn't make them any more correct. Both those posts just ignore that both of the players have lost a series and are therefore on equal ground. But who did they lose them to? Well A won over B and then lost against him. And lost another game. B lost against A, and won all his other games, including one against A. So if B consistently loses to A then A is the stronger 1v1 player in the AvsB match-up. If you want to argue subjectively who is better by how they would have done against other players, then what you are looking for is round robin play. No, what YOU are looking for is single elimination tournament. If it is double elimination, you have a fresh chance to come back, having lost one series. In a regular double elim, A beats B, then B beats A in loser bracket, how is A consistently better ?
Ok and in an extended series A wins twice in the upper and then wins twice in the lower and has won a best of 7, and has proven himself to be the better player.
If B wins the extended series or beats A in the lower bracket of a traditional double elim tourney, he is the better player at the time that series takes place.
If A wins extended series or a second set of double elim he has proven he is the better player at that present time.
The objection to the extended series just hasn't really had a valid argument behind it yet.
|
On November 09 2010 21:07 Kazang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 20:34 Pyroteq wrote:
Ok, as a competitive player if I was knocked out of a tournament by a player that I had beat 2:0 then lost 2:1 I'd be kind of upset. At the same time, I wouldn't be proud of myself if I progressed through a tournament knowing I knocked a player out who was better than me. (Yes, believe it or not, some of us competitive gamers actually have integrity.)
Extended series make this a non-issue because the BETTER and more CONSISTENT player wins, not the player who got lucky. It means every game means something, not just the series as a whole.
The system works fine across ANY game. It doesn't matter what game it is, whether it's Tekken, SC2, Halo or Call of Duty, the maths and logic behind it is exactly the same. Quoting this becasue it is correct and also reposting my post from earlier as apparently people are still posing questions it quite clearly answers.
Don't repost your long winded statements that have no bearing on the point he is trying to make. Most people I know do not question that it is a slightly bad situation when you are eliminated from the tournament by a player you have positive score with. The problem with extended series is that it is inherently unfair rule that introduces bracket luck back into the system. Why is it unfair because it gives advantage to only some players based on how they are initially placed in the brackets(so bracket luck). Also as I pointed out in the extended series of A vs B it actually gives sometimes advantage to player C that is not part of that extended series at all, how is that for fairness.
In the end the slight problem that we have in pure double elim. is outweighed by the benefits of eliminating bracket luck and unfairness introduced by extended series rule. And even that problem is just caused by the way of thinking that uses maps played as atomic unit of performace. But if we use BoX as a whole as a atomic unit of player's performance, there is no problem. In that case we have score for those players 1:1 but one of them has also second loss from someone else, hence he is eliminated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
