|
Finland1069 Posts
It is almost completely irrelevant how players A and B ended up meeting each other. A might have got 6 byes and B had to face Dimaga, Idra, Tester etc to get to that match. That is irrelevant at that point. The only thing that matters is which of these particular players is better, A or B.
If A has already beaten B once, in a Bo3, then there already exists some knowledge about which of these two players is the better one at the moment. If these two players face again, extending that previous resut into a Bo7 gives more accurate information of who is the better player. More games equals a more accurate estimate.
If you must think about the whole "B earned his right to..." thing then you can think of it this way: By not dying in the losers bracket and because it's a double elimination tournament, B earned the right to save-load into an extended series with A if he ever faces him again. In other words, he can prove if he really would have won against A if there just were a few more games. It does not punish either one of the players, it just helps to confirm which of the players is the better one.
Extended series simply gives a bit more accurate estimate of the ranking between certain two players. Of course it is a more complex and difficult system for the audience to follow but that's really a different conversation.
|
On November 10 2010 13:10 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
The extended series doesn't need to reward earlier performance to have a purpose... how is playing a regular bo7 rewarding earlier performance? The extended series throws away any bias about which games came earlier or later (something that a 2nd bo3 doesn't do) and allows you to play a straight up bo7. The bracket just wants to know which one of you is truly better and I think from your first paragraph we agree that a bo7 is better than a bo3 for that.
The reason why the extended series rewards the player who won the first series is because the earlier games are essentially accounted for twice. The results of the games played in the first series are used to determine who stays in the winners bracket, then those same results are used a second time in determining who advances when they meet again. The first series the players play against each other is technically weighted twice as heavily as other series, and that is where the reward comes from.
|
How do I vote it's not fair for every other player that doesn't get an extended series? I just find it unfair that someone can lose 6 times in 2 brackets and get eliminated while others only get to lose 4 times before they are eliminated just because they were unlucky in not meeting someone they have faced before.
|
I view the issue from a spectators perspective. Long story short - seeing as I clearly have not seen all the games, and am not aware all the time who has played who, and when, extended series just feel jarring when they come up because it feels kind of arbitrary when you haven't seen the other games.
I think normal just normal best of 3s feel much better to watch.
|
On November 11 2010 23:18 SnuggleZhenya wrote:
I view the issue from a spectators perspective. Long story short - seeing as I clearly have not seen all the games, and am not aware all the time who has played who, and when, extended series just feel jarring when they come up because it feels kind of arbitrary when you haven't seen the other games.
I think normal just normal best of 3s feel much better to watch.
I think this just about sums up the one side.
Tyler has been very cogent about summing up the other.
Y'all need to realize that your positions are not mutually exclusive to each other. One person is not right and the other is not wrong. They are in fact both very valid positions! They are both logically consistent and lean towards different preferences whether it be fair outcome individually, fair outcome for the group, or spectator preference.
For those of you bashing Tyler for defending the extended series but ultimately saying he does not want it are missing the point. Tyler sees the reason for the existence of the extended series, but would rather not have it. It is not inconsistent to say that because the two perspectives do not contradict each other.
|
the MLG poll and TL poll seems extremely similar
Also: the rule is fucking bullshit, they should both start with blank slates.
|
With the current rules, if a person gets matched up in the LB against someone they played in the WB, they have an unfair advantage compared to the other matchups in that round. If the other players weren't lucky enough to get matched up against a previous opponent, their task in the round will be more difficult because they don't start the series with a lead.
I don't understand why so many esports organizations insist on weird changes to the tried and true double elimination bracket.
|
On November 12 2010 01:20 trainRiderJ wrote:
With the current rules, if a person gets matched up in the LB against someone they played in the WB, they have an unfair advantage compared to the other matchups in that round. If the other players weren't lucky enough to get matched up against a previous opponent, their task in the round will be more difficult because they don't start the series with a lead.
I don't understand why so many esports organizations insist on weird changes to the tried and true double elimination bracket.
To be fair, every tournament ever run uses slightly different rules. Olympic Judo, for example, has the winner of the winners' bracket taking the gold medal, with the loser in the winners' final taking silver. The losers' bracket then decides who gets the bronze medal. In that light, esports organisations are no different for introducing the extended series rule.
|
Nony himself had a good argument in the SotG podcast.. It may not be fair to start wit a deficit in the second match against a player, but it îs even more unfair to win 2-0 the first time and then lose 1-2 in LB, and still be eliminated even though you have 3-2 overall against that player..
Extended series makes the luck of the draw much less influential..
And no, it îs not more "accurate" ranking method, because bracket systems do not rank the skill of players. Just like day9 said, it relies on probabillities, so no acurate ranking of any kind îs achieved..
The ONLY tournament system that estimates rankings and skill values îs Round Robin.. In current sc2, playing RR with ALL matches as bo9 with all maps would be the most effective, though it would take months..
|
On November 12 2010 01:37 Dagon wrote:
Nony himself had a good argument in the SotG podcast.. It may not be fair to start wit a deficit in the second match against a player, but it îs even more unfair to win 2-0 the first time and then lose 1-2 in LB, and still be eliminated even though you have 3-2 overall against that player..
I look at each individual bo3 being a self-contained unit. It's sort of similar to how tennis is scored. If you win the first set 6-0 and lose the second 4-6, you aren't "ahead" going into the third set just because you took more games overall.
Also, I really think it's important to note that you aren't guaranteed to be matched up against someone you've already played in the losers bracket, so there is an amount of luck there that I don't believe has a place in a competitive tournament.
|
I like the idea on paper, but if MLG is the only place running it, it needs to be cut. To me, having something that different would be the same as MLG running BO1 until the semi's or some nonsense. Try to keep the rules of each tourney relatively the same.
BUT, in favor of the extended series on paper....
Let's lengthen the series to make the point a little more obvious.
If it was a tourney ENTIRELY BO19, then the extend series would take your first scores add it into a BO39.
(under regular, 2 independant series rules)
If I house you 10-0 in the first BO19, and you squeek by 10-9 in the second BO19, why do you deserve to go on? I won 19 games, you won 10. Clearly I am the better player out of the games we played, you just won games at better times than I did. We could have the same 19-10 score, but what if I won the first set 10-5 and in set 2 I am up 9-5. Would anyone argue you are better? Maybe if I cheesed every fucking game, but otherwise, no.
(under extended series)
In the above case, I would be up 19-10, I need 1 game to win, you need 10.
I think that a player should be able to win at any given time, but having 'regular' rules favors the weaker player, giving him more chances.
|
On November 12 2010 04:26 SaetZero wrote:
If I house you 10-0 in the first BO19, and you squeek by 10-9 in the second BO19, why do you deserve to go on? I won 19 games, you won 10. Clearly I am the better player out of the games we played, you just won games at better times than I did. We could have the same 19-10 score, but what if I won the first set 10-9 and in set 2 I am up 9-1.
That assumes that all games in a tournament are equal, when they are not. Elimination games matter the most and there is more pressure. Games that could put your opponent one win away from eliminating you matter more than second game of a best of seven. The very first game in a series has a distinct psychological difference from the rest.
If you're going to require people to play 19 games against each other you might as well make it single elimination.
|
the way i see it it isnt the tournaments job to decide who the best player is, thats the players job.
|
On November 12 2010 04:36 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:26 SaetZero wrote:
If I house you 10-0 in the first BO19, and you squeek by 10-9 in the second BO19, why do you deserve to go on? I won 19 games, you won 10. Clearly I am the better player out of the games we played, you just won games at better times than I did. We could have the same 19-10 score, but what if I won the first set 10-9 and in set 2 I am up 9-1. That assumes that all games in a tournament are equal, when they are not. Elimination games matter the most and there is more pressure. Games that could put your opponent one win away from eliminating you matter more than second game of a best of seven. The very first game in a series has a distinct psychological difference from the rest. If you're going to require people to play 19 games against each other you might as well make it single elimination.
And what if we play set 1 on day 1, when I am playing 100% and you are playing 100%
Then day 2, no fault of my own, I got sick or some shit. Now you play 100% and I am only playing 70%
And I still take you to the final game, clearly the better player, because even on a bad day, I am keeping even with you. I'm not saying there aren't outside factors like pressure, but if I am clearly the BETTER player, do you DESERVE your spot ahead of me just because of the order of our games?
One side, yes, you played better the day of, so you earn it. I can side with that.
Other wise, no, you got lucky and the tournament helped you out. Hell if we played our loser's bracket on day 1 or day 3, it might not have happened.
I just think extended eliminates an extra chance of luck that could affect the outcome of the game. If you are better, and you deserve to beat me in the loser's round, and you deserve to win the whole thing, why can't you run back a 19-10 deficit and win it 20-19?
|
If you get sick you're supposed to beast it anyways like Michael Jordan did :p
|
I think most people agree that MLG just needs a few rule revisions to the Starcraft 2 tournament as it works a little bit differently than other games.
|
@trainRiderJ:
Yea, that's one way of looking at it. Win no matter what, that's what champions do. Power outage during Flash/JD showed that... o wait, there was clearly some tilt there. I like JD  But that was upsetting. 
Win no matter what vs should it be acceptable for a lesser player to win because of something outside of gameplay?
If you look at double elim BO3, you need to win 4 matches total to elim someone twice.
Set 1: I win 2-0
Set 2: You win 2-1
I get eliminated, but I won 3 games to your 2
But... if the tourney was BO1 5X elimination... and we met all 5 times.
I would have won.
If it was BO5, single elim, I would have won.
You win because of the rules favoring you, not because you are better. Just can't get behind that entirely. Same case, if it was BO7 maybe you would run back the 3-2 and win 4-3, but we don't know that. Just makes think sometimes "what could have been"
(not that i'm tournament level, but you know... roleplaying wise... lol)
|
It feels like an argument that not really one sided because both schools of thought make sense. You have extended series, which prevents situations like a 2-2 tie between players but one player moves on, and you have separate Bo3s which are just as justifiable. Personally I can't make a decision since they're both legitimate ways to play a tournament.
|
On November 12 2010 04:26 SaetZero wrote:
If I house you 10-0 in the first BO19, and you squeek by 10-9 in the second BO19, why do you deserve to go on? I won 19 games, you won 10.
So, if we're exaggerating like that, what happens if I had beat you 10-0 in the tournament last month, can I carry those wins over as well? You're just setting an arbitrary constraint there, so we may as well arbitrarily extend it to games won over a longer period of time so it becomes obvious how bad of a concept that is.
A match is, as somebody rightly said in the SoTG, an isolated event. The "games won" are just "sets" within a match. The relevant outcome of a match is that one player wins, the other player loses - score is only kept during the match to determine the winner of that specific match. The bracket only cares about which player goes on, and which player is knocked out (or to the LB) - or at least that's how tournament systems are supposed to work.
|
Its better than the alternatives in a double elimination tournament. If you just do two best of 3's people with a winning record against a player can be eliminated by them. If you make the loser bracket winner have to win two best of 3's instead of an extended series then a win in the winners final counts for nothing in the grand finals making comebacks less likely.
Personally single elimination with added games the closer you get to the finals like in the GSL is a lot better, at least for spectators. Rarely do players come back from the losers bracket to win, it hasnt happened in any of the MLG's, making for anticlimatic extended series and grand finals. If on the other hand you have best of 5 quarter/semifinals and best of 7 finals single elimination you get to see all new matches between different players all the time, and more games when the big money is involved, where you dont know who is going to win and no one is at an advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
