|
On June 07 2011 05:49 JustPlay wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 05:48 Chocobo wrote:On June 07 2011 00:02 Apolo wrote:
Underdogs should not win. The point of a tournament is that the best players are at the top, and this system is just fair and more accurate for that purpose. Extended series should definitely stay.
Then let the best players EARN their wins. If that's how you feel then why not make every Code S players' games a best of 9 with them starting up 4-0 against every opponent. They've earned their way up to Code S and proven their skill, right? They shouldn't have to actually fight their way through a tournament bracket, right? (if you agree with this are you insane) Like I've said before, anyone who thinks extended series is more fair simply has a very limited understanding of what it does and the problems it causes. It is literally a less fair system and this can be proven with facts. Facts like in the same tournament the players played with that record? Starting up 4-0 for no reason is completely arbitrary while extended series is based on relevant results. The best players earn their wins in extended series. Removing extended series is just a way to let a worse player win out a series. If you can't win >50% of your matches against a player why should you advance past him?
On June 07 2011 06:03 [MLG]GCA wrote:
I truly believe extended series is the only fair way to handle two players meeting twice in a double elimination tournament. It rewards players that win early and often, and is the best way to reward the best players over the tournament as a whole.
For example, player X meets player Y in Winners, and X wins 2-0. The two players meet again in Losers, and Y wins 2-1. Player X has won more games against Y over the course of tournament, but is eliminated by him. That just doesn't seem right to me.
And this is exactly where MLG failed at grasping why extended series is wrong. You guys are not taking into consideration the other matches the players have played in the tournament as a whole. How "good" or "bad" a player is isn't just about the match up between those two, it is how well they are doing in the tournament as a whole, this is why it is a tournament to begin with.
Take MC and Idra for example. How can you prove that Idra is doing better than MC in the tournament simply because the result of one series they had on the first day? What about Idra losing to Thorzane but MC beating Thorzane? Does this also not prove that MC is better or at least equal to Idra? The answer is both does NOT prove that one is better than another. Therefore the most fair way to find out when they meet again is to have a fresh start to see who advances forward.
Look at the tournament as a whole, and look what MC had to go through compared to Idra just because Idra beat MC on the opening day. Keep in mind they both ended up with 1 loss in their Pool play, but because of the direct loss :
- MC had to beat Moon
- MC then had to beat Thorzane
- MC then had to beat Naniwa
- While on the other hand, Idra took a loss against MMA
- Idra then beat slush, and that is it.
As you can see, Idra is already rewarded for that win by placing farther in the brackets, as well as giving him a life line allowing him to lose once and still arrive at the same point as MC. While MC on the other hand, had to battle through 3 opponents without a lifeline, just to meet Idra.
Now, both players are at the same point on the bracket. One took his punishment already by losing earlier and had to battle out 3 full series with no loss, while the other took his reward by having a lifeline and taking a loss, then only had to win one more series.
How can anyone in their right mind, at this point, after what these two have accomplished after their first encouter, could call it fair that MC must win 4/5 games against Idra to advance? It's absolutely ridiculous. (yes I understand MC pulled through, but that had more to do with Idra on a tilt than anything, and is irrelevant to the argument)
|
On June 07 2011 06:55 LetoAtreides82 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 06:46 Baituri wrote:
I think most people don't realize that MLG does not have a double elimination tournament.
You have 3 separate tournaments.
Pool play
Open brackets
Championship brackets
The Pool play and Open brackets only function as seeding for the Championship Bracket. This means that the Championship Bracket is a separate tournament.
In the pools you can't play someone 2 times, so the extended series rule doesn't apply here.
In the open brackets it is possible to meet the guy who knocked you down. The extended series rule could make sense here. But why would you use extra rules for a seeding tournament.
In the Championship bracket the only way you can meet the guy who knocked you down from the winner bracket is to meet him again in the finals. Where the guy from the winner bracket already has an advantage. He only has to win 1 Bo3 and the guy from the loser bracket already has to win 2 Bo3s (At least that is how it should be, MLG does not do this because of the extended series rule.)
I think the problem that should be discussed is: Are the different tournaments (How I like to call it) really separate tournaments, or is it 1 big tournament.
It's 1 big tournament because you get paid based on your final standing.
You only get paid for you final standing in the Championship Bracket. I see the pools and open bracket like the Qualification process in the NASL. It just determines who will get in the Big final tournament.
Like I said in my previous post. If the NASL had the extended rule and someone from the same pool meet each other in the Top 16 tournament. Does that mean the previous result counts? Nobody gets paid when they are in the pools and they are working to that eventually. They get paid on their final standings like you said.
|
On June 07 2011 06:43 nalgene wrote:
The players play the first half of the Bo7 earlier and then resume playing it if they meet again. Nothing wrong with this at all...
MC reversed it from 0-2 to 4-2 with his 4-0 win... he just had jet lag on the first day, but everything was fine 2 days later
That doesn't really make sense... If it's not a complete series, it shouldn't count and wouldn't matter for scoring or relegate someone to the loser's bracket. Either a bo3 is a complete series, for everyone, or it's not.
Also, I don't get why the comparison to keeping the score in the open season in the play-offs doesn't apply.
The pool play works just for seeding, just like the open season in american sports ou groups stage in Champions League, World Cup, etc.
It's clearly just one tournament, else you would have standings and prizes for the open seasons as well.
The diference is just that in other sports they happen farther away in time?
There will never be a complete analogy, because there is no double elimination in other sports, at least that I know of, but this seems to be as close as it gets.
The biggest argument for extended series, is that more games means a better way to show who is the best player, in that tournament, no matter when they happened. Why doesn't more games mean the same thing work for the NBA? Shouldn't the better team beat the worse team in that amount of games?
Why does is it matter that a player can win with a worse overall record against someone in that tournament, but a NBA/NFL team can win with a worse overall record against another team and noone even brings it up?
|
On June 07 2011 07:02 ALang wrote:
I think it's the best for the format. A player who wins 2-0 the first time and loses 2-0 or 2-1 the 2nd time should not be knocked out with a neutral 2-2 or even 3-2 record. The best of 7 eliminates the possibility of this happening, which ultimately creates the most fair environment for the tournament.
Yes, it's fair. So is non-extended series, according to pretty much everyone. Sports a gazillion times more popular than Starcraft don't use extended series, and no one EVER complains about it.
And the cost for this "fairness" is shit series. Name one series that was made more entertaining because of extended series. That's what this is ultimately all about, it's a spectator sport after all.
|
The format encourages extended series to begin with, which just doesn't make sense. They only put people from groups A and B together, and then people in group C and D together, rather than mixing them all up. So every time a player advances two spots there is an extended series... that is a bit ridiculous.
Also there are two ways to look at it. Either 1 being... the group play is used to get an advantage, so if you beat a player in your group player earlier, then you won't get a second advantage later, because you already got one which was being placed higher in the championship bracket.
The other, which I have been most adamant about, would be simply having each player have to win 2 bo3's against a player to advance (if they already played that player).
For example... lets say there is an isolated case... a showmatch for example. We have two players, MC and Thorzain. Again, for the sake of argument this isn't in a tournament or anything like that... I just want to argue what is most fair.
So these two players are competing in a show match, and the first to win to bo3's is the winner. Lets say MC wins the first bo3. (Let me quickly say that it doesn't matter how much he won by. The reason there are boX matches rather than bo1 is because you have to play consistently, you don't have to completely outclass your opponent). So once again... MC has defeated Thorzain. Now Thorzain is behind (as he could be in a tournament setting) so MC still does have an advantage. Lets say that Thorzain wins the next bo3. It then comes down to a completely new bo3 for anyone to win. Does this seem like a fair circumstance? If MC wins the first bo3, then Thorzain has to win the next 2, while MC only has to win 1 more? I think so... and I believe that is what they should do at MLG.
What they are currently doing with a similar situation is... MC might win the first bo3 as I suggested above. Ok. Once again MC has an advantage like he did previously, but it is different this time. Thorzain may be down 0-2 (since each individual game counts, which I think is wrong. It is easy to lose a game here or there when you shouldn't have, and that is the reason we have boXs as I stated above) so now he still has to win 4 games just like he would in what I am arguing for (2 wins per bo3) and MC would still only need to win 2 games, but now MC can win those 2 games across 2 bo3 series, which is a huge advantage for having won the first bo3. In other words, I just don't think that is fair.
So once again, in almost any situation (such as simply looking back on various match ups between two players across multiple tournaments) to see which player has won more against the other player, we go by the end result of the boXs, not by individual wins/losses. The point is. Thorzain might go 0-2, 2-1, 1-1 and then the match up will end with MC being victorious. It just doesn't make sense. It goes against the logic of having boX series to begin with.
Hopefully that was clear.
|
On June 07 2011 07:00 LetoAtreides82 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 06:52 Zaros wrote:
You know if idra got to the finals of the winners bracket and faced thorzain idra would have been down 0-2 even though he came from the winners bracket and should have an advantage. That imo is a stupid rule. Thorzain had to win matches in order to face Idra again, why wouldn't he deserve to keep his 2-0 advantage?
You can use the same argument the other way around. MC had to win matches in order to face Idra again, why would Idra deserve to keep his 2-0 advantage?
As you see, if you look at what the players accomplished in the entire tournament as a whole, instead of just the matches between them, it is impossible to say which player deserves or doesn't deserve the advantage. Therefore, the most fair way for them is to have a fresh start to really find out who is better to advance.
The whole point I'm trying to make is, is that the tournament format itself already rewards and punish players for winning and losing. When you lose, you get thrown into loser's bracket, loses your lifeline, and had to win extra series to even have a chance of getting back up there. Period. The advantages and disadvantages should end here, as they are already given out accordingly.
If the two ever meet again, it just means that the other player already loss to someone else, while the ex-loser won all his games to get back up here for a rematch. At this point, it means they both lost an equal number of series in the tournament, that being one. You can't say which is better or worst, because they both lost once in the entire tournament at this point. Just because A beat B earlier, doesn't mean A is better than B and should get an advantage, because B might of beaten C, D, and F, one of which might be better than A.
|
On June 07 2011 07:11 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:02 ALang wrote:
I think it's the best for the format. A player who wins 2-0 the first time and loses 2-0 or 2-1 the 2nd time should not be knocked out with a neutral 2-2 or even 3-2 record. The best of 7 eliminates the possibility of this happening, which ultimately creates the most fair environment for the tournament. Yes, it's fair. So is non-extended series, according to pretty much everyone. Sports a gazillion times more popular than Starcraft don't use extended series, and no one EVER complains about it. And the cost for this "fairness" is shit series. Name one series that was made more entertaining because of extended series. That's what this is ultimately all about, it's a spectator sport after all.
+ Show Spoiler +
As much as I believe it to be an awfull rule, you have to admit that matches like MC vs Idra, where the player has not only to beat the other player that has a previous positive record against him, but also has to beat the rulebook that puts him even further behind, can be pretty exciting if the player that overcomes the 0-2 deficit manages to win it. Winning when everything is against you is always a good story, even if it's not a good tournament practice.
If the player that lost before loses again, specially if he manages to start the series 2-1, it can be pretty unexciting though.
|
If you want to give a player an advantage for having previously beat an opponent and having to face him again just give the winner map pick including the map his opponent vetoed. I'm sure everyone could live with that. Just for the love of all that is holy, start it off 0-0. While your at it increase winner's semis/finals to Bo5, loser's finals to Bo5, and Grand Finals Bo7 with an extra Bo3 if Loser's wins.
SC2 is not Halo and should not be under the same rules. I'm tired of seeing 2-3 game Finals. It's completely retarded.
|
Well I guess, though that series is a poor example since 3/4 games were terrible. Still easily outweighed by the numerous terrible and anticlimactic series it produces. A series starting 0-0 always has a decent chance of being interesting. Maybe the weaker player flukes a win because his opponent shoots up his own CC or something  2-0 for the weaker player is just game over goodnight. Totally uninteresting.
|
I don't understand why players complain about this rule. It's effectively reducing variance which is usually something players desire in competition.
This also means that upsets are less likely which from a spectator point may or may not be a good thing. It also means more games which I think most of us can agree is a good thing based on this past weekend.
I'm curious as to why a player like Idra dislikes the rule since he expects to win most BO3s he plays which then gives him the advantage in the extended series.
|
On June 07 2011 06:03 [MLG]GCA wrote:
I truly believe extended series is the only fair way to handle two players meeting twice in a double elimination tournament. It rewards players that win early and often, and is the best way to reward the best players over the tournament as a whole.
For example, player X meets player Y in Winners, and X wins 2-0. The two players meet again in Losers, and Y wins 2-1. Player X has won more games against Y over the course of tournament, but is eliminated by him. That just doesn't seem right to me.
>> Player X has won more games against Y over the course of tournament, but is eliminated by him. That just doesn't seem right to me.
It's right because Player X has lost other games to other player(s) that player Y didn't.
>> It rewards players that win early and often
Why is this good? Games played later in a tournament should be more important than the games played earlier. The games in the final should be the MOST important. That was not the case in this MLG.
Overall extended series feels like a random insertion of massive luck in select situations. With the way the championship loser's bracket set up, there are cases where a player's chance of advancing swings wildly: From pools, the 2nd, 4th, and 6th place players are put in one 'thread', and 3rd and 5th in another. Depending on who you lost to in pools, it matters a lot which thread you get put in.
Just to show with numbers, if we assume that two players are equally skilled (50/50 chance), a player with a 0-2 deficit has a 18.75% (6/32) chance of winning that extended series, against 82.25%! Under normal tournament rules both players obviously have 50%. That is what I call a massive insertion of luck.
Please someone refute any of this.
|
I guess the big thing that MLG and people supporting extended series don't see, is that you can't isolate two players from the entire tournament and compared them alone. The whole point of the tournament is to see who is the best compared to every other players. Therefore, it is important to take each player's accomplishment in the tournament as a whole into consideration.
The fact that they are having a rematch means that the loser already took his punishment, and proved his worth by battling his way back up to get a rematch, while the winner took his reward by advancing forward, had to play less games, and was able to use up his lifeline. At this point, you can not arbitrarily say one player is better than another and thus should get an advantage over another. You must let them battle it out fair and square. So what if player A can advance with 2-3 overall score against player B? That is perfectly fine because player B had to beat C, D, E and maybe F to get back here for a rematch while A didn't.
|
It's fair, I think it a good format, and I think it should be used. If this were an event like NASL, it wouldn't make sense to have extended series, but in a quick weekend-long tournament like this, it works, and lets the better player prove it. If a series is really close, let it be a bo7 that finds the better player. It sucks when you can be 3-2 against someone, yet they're the one advancing because your 2 losses were untimely.
|
On June 07 2011 07:32 ScreaM-tHE wrote:
It's fair, I think it a good format, and I think it should be used. If this were an event like NASL, it wouldn't make sense to have extended series, but in a quick weekend-long tournament like this, it works, and lets the better player prove it. If a series is really close, let it be a bo7 that finds the better player. It sucks when you can be 3-2 against someone, yet they're the one advancing because your 2 losses were untimely.
It's fair, because advancing 2-3 against someone does not mean you're worst than him as a whole of the tournament.
|
On June 07 2011 07:27 Campbell wrote:
I'm curious as to why a player like Idra dislikes the rule since he expects to win most BO3s he plays which then gives him the advantage in the extended series.
Because he's pretty rational, for the most part.
What still confuses me is if no one ever complains about standard double elimination rules, why is MLG going out of their way to change it, making it an issue?
You essentially get triple elimination if you happen to be lucky enough to get to play someone you already beat. It just doesn't make sense.
|
On June 07 2011 06:03 [MLG]GCA wrote:
Just to show with numbers, if we assume that two players are equally skilled (50/50 chance), a player with a 0-2 deficit has a 18.75% (6/32) chance of winning that extended series, against 82.25%! Under normal tournament rules both players obviously have 50%. That is what I call a massive insertion of luck.
Please someone refute any of this.
Players are very rarely equally skilled.
If we're trying to find the most skilled competitor we need to maximize the number of games played in order to 'reduce luck' (decrease variance).
An extended series will always have at least as many games played as two BO3s therefore it is the superior method for determining which player is more skilled.
|
It's not "unfair" it simply remembers a past game. It's a pointless rule though, there's no reason not to just have separate BO3's every time.
|
On June 07 2011 07:39 Campbell wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 06:03 [MLG]GCA wrote:
Just to show with numbers, if we assume that two players are equally skilled (50/50 chance), a player with a 0-2 deficit has a 18.75% (6/32) chance of winning that extended series, against 82.25%! Under normal tournament rules both players obviously have 50%. That is what I call a massive insertion of luck.
Please someone refute any of this. Players are very rarely equally skilled. If we're trying to find the most skilled competitor we need to maximize the number of games played in order to 'reduce luck' (decrease variance). An extended series will always have at least as many games played as two BO3s therefore it is the superior method for determining which player is more skilled.
But the fact that you lost 0-2 in the first place means that the other player is at least equal, if not better than you, so therefore those statistics stands. Even worst, in a RTS game, it allows one side to take risks while the other side can not. And, one side has to come up with four different strategies/builds while the other side only needs two. These further reduces the chance the loser has of making a come back. It is absolutely awful from an audience's perspective to go into a highly anticipated rematch just to realize that one side has such a low chance of winning.
I'm interested to see statistics from MLG of how many times people actually came back from a losing extended series. Personally Idra vs MC was the only time i saw it happen and this is more of a outlier due to Idra's emotional tilt than anything.
|
On June 07 2011 06:03 [MLG]GCA wrote:
Just to show with numbers, if we assume that two players are equally skilled (50/50 chance), a player with a 0-2 deficit has a 18.75% (6/32) chance of winning that extended series, against 82.25%! Under normal tournament rules both players obviously have 50%. That is what I call a massive insertion of luck.
Please someone refute any of this.
So if we played a coinflip tournament and I beat you 2-0, lose to the next guy, then happen to get to play you in losers, I should arbitrarily get more chances at beating you the next time we play a Bo3 in a game of coinflips? That's what you're saying. Lol, giving someone an increase from 50% to 82% is LITERALLY a massive insertion of luck.
|
This is totally not fair if the koreans had to go through the Open bracket they most likely wouldn't have gotten those extended series against the americans and Europeans. They just get the highest seeds because they have some big ego.. of being the players in the world, that isn't true. If you saw the Tsl3 no korean even made it to the semi's this is just dum
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
