|
On June 07 2011 08:50 TedJustice wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:48 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:45 TedJustice wrote:
If you beat someone early on, that means you made it farther than them, so it makes sense that you'd have an advantage against them.
What I don't understand is if people are against this, why aren't they against seeding? Doesn't that also give an "unfair advantage" to people who win? Wrong. The fact that they are playing each other again means that they both made it just as far at this point. The advantage in the first place is already there by being seeded higher, or moving along without having to play several more series in the loser's bracket to get back up to this point. They made it farther in the winner's bracket though. That's arguably more difficult because the players up there are supposed to be better. So that's something they should be rewarded for.
Well if that's your argument, then arguably if player A wins a series over player B, player A is a better player than player B. So it should be no problem for player A to win another series over player B because he's better. It would be ridiculous to make the series even more one-sided by treating it as a continuation of the previous series that the worse player already lost. -_-
However, we all know that in reality, in a high level tournament, the notion that the winners bracket opponents are "better" and that the losers bracket is "easier" is just ridiculous, especially if a base format for the series is mere BO3.
The easiest way to get rid of all the issues is to just scrap the awful idea that is double elimination. It has no place in Starcraft and it's the root of all the MLG format-related problems.
|
On June 07 2011 08:58 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:55 Jerubaal wrote:On June 07 2011 08:49 Enwrit wrote:Not a fair rule. I think the whole idea of deciding the more skilled player is rough, and certainly can't be definitively determined from any single BoX. What happens in one series could be totally different from another, IdrA vs. MC for instance. Rematches between players should therefore be treated as separate series, instead of doubly punishing the initial loser for that earlier loss. The one aspect that I'm okay with for rematches is not playing on any of the same maps. On June 07 2011 07:27 yoshi_yoshi wrote:
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.
...
Please someone refute any of this. I agree with it. That's a great point. So you think that no BoX can determine the best player, but you think that multiple BoX where the W/L of the previous rounds is irrelevant simplifies this? That's not exactly his point, he means that results from one part of the tournament shouldnt affect another part of the tournament, besides, obviously, the rewards from playing well in that particular part.
Exactly. I was saying that, because the more skilled player can't be determined from any single series, one Bo3 plus a later rematch souldn't be considered one Bo7.
|
On June 07 2011 09:17 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
EDIT: Arguments against this invariably bring up Player X, Y, Z scenarios. The purpose of the tournament is not to find the best player (as that is impossible); the purpose is to find out who is playing the best that day, in that circumstance. Taking this principle, it should be evident that it's easier (read: better) to compare players A and B by themselves than to compare A, B, C, D, E.....Z. (Players A and B are in the finals, but really player C is the best because the margin with which he lost to player D, who beat player A, is smaller than the margin player B lost player G....). And, again, taking this principle that we are trying to isolate a measurable scenario instead of some wide sweeping conclusion, it should be obvious that it's better to only use a game as a standard and not series. Thus we have an extended series where the players are judge by which games they win, not by which series they win. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins. Which is correct? Look at basically any sport as see how team that can win in the last stages of the tournament are praised for having the ability to rise when the situation demands it. It's pretty common to see the team with the best overall record NOT win the tournament, because in a eliminations format, winning in the play-offs matters more. If you want the team with the best overall record to win, you need a league format, where everyone playes everyone, the same amount of games and you count the results against everyone, not just the 2 teams. It's also pretty common for the champion to have lost against the second placed team 2 times in league. Noone says it's unfair.
this is really just a matter of perception. the entire mlg tournament can be seen as the postseason for a major sport. the regular season in let's say basketball serves merely as a qualification and seeding system for the playoffs. where the reward for performing well in the entire season will match you up against a lower seeded team and give you home court advantage. the open bracket and group play in mlg should be considered as part of the playoffs already, instead of less important regular season type games.
|
On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
EDIT: Arguments against this invariably bring up Player X, Y, Z scenarios. The purpose of the tournament is not to find the best player (as that is impossible); the purpose is to find out who is playing the best that day, in that circumstance. Taking this principle, it should be evident that it's easier (read: better) to compare players A and B by themselves than to compare A, B, C, D, E.....Z. (Players A and B are in the finals, but really player C is the best because the margin with which he lost to player D, who beat player A, is smaller than the margin player B lost player G....). And, again, taking this principle that we are trying to isolate a measurable scenario instead of some wide sweeping conclusion, it should be obvious that it's better to only use a game as a standard and not series. Thus we have an extended series where the players are judge by which games they win, not by which series they win. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins.
Why does every single person who defends extended series keep repeating this one point? Why do you ignore the mountain of evidence that regular double elimination is better and fairer? Why do you ignore all of the problems that extended series introduces?
I want an extended-series defender to answer some of these questions.
1) Idra defeated MC, his reward was a shorter path to reach the finals, and he got to travel that path with a lifeline (being able to lose a matchup but still be in the tournament). He won only 1 more matchup, then lost to MMA.
MC had to defeat four straight opponents to reach the same point as Idra, and couldn't have any losses along the way. Since the first match, MC had to win 8 games to reach this point and Idra only had to win 2. Both MC and Idra have lost to one other player in the tournament. MC has already been at a great disadvantage... how in the world is it fair to require him to win 4-1 or 4-0 when he's already been punished hard for his loss?
2) Thorzain and Ret have been having equal performances. Both did well at first, then got sent to the losers bracket. Both go 2-1 in their next losers bracket matchup. Ret advances, but Thorzain does not advance because he was unlucky enough to have run into a rematch in the bracket.
Why should pure luck in the brackets determine who advances and who is eliminated?
3) Naniwa and Idra have been having equal performances. Both went far into the winners bracket, then lost in the semifinals. Idra's next match is a bo7 with a 2-0 lead, Naniwa's next match is a bo3 with a 0-0 start. Why should identically performing players be treated differently due to luck?
4) In the losers bracket finals was Losira vs MC. If one player advances, then MMA begins the finals with a huge advantage. If the other player advances, MMA has no advantage. Why should the winners bracket champion randomly have or not have an advantage in the finals?
5) Losira advanced to the winners bracket finals without taking a loss, while MC took early losses and had to fight his way back up to contention. But somehow if Losira advances to the grand finals he deserves to have a huge disadvantage... and if MC advances he does not have a disadvantage? What kind of sense does that make?
6) Two-game grand finals are stupid. Agree or disagree?
--------------
I challenge anyone who thinks that extended series is a good thing to answer these questions, and explain to me how introducing all of these large problems is worth it in order to solve a small problem that no one ever complained about in the first place.
|
On June 07 2011 09:36 IrrasO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 09:17 SKC wrote:On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
EDIT: Arguments against this invariably bring up Player X, Y, Z scenarios. The purpose of the tournament is not to find the best player (as that is impossible); the purpose is to find out who is playing the best that day, in that circumstance. Taking this principle, it should be evident that it's easier (read: better) to compare players A and B by themselves than to compare A, B, C, D, E.....Z. (Players A and B are in the finals, but really player C is the best because the margin with which he lost to player D, who beat player A, is smaller than the margin player B lost player G....). And, again, taking this principle that we are trying to isolate a measurable scenario instead of some wide sweeping conclusion, it should be obvious that it's better to only use a game as a standard and not series. Thus we have an extended series where the players are judge by which games they win, not by which series they win. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins. Which is correct? Look at basically any sport as see how team that can win in the last stages of the tournament are praised for having the ability to rise when the situation demands it. It's pretty common to see the team with the best overall record NOT win the tournament, because in a eliminations format, winning in the play-offs matters more. If you want the team with the best overall record to win, you need a league format, where everyone playes everyone, the same amount of games and you count the results against everyone, not just the 2 teams. It's also pretty common for the champion to have lost against the second placed team 2 times in league. Noone says it's unfair. this is really just a matter of perception. the entire mlg tournament can be seen as the postseason for a major sport. the regular season in let's say basketball serves merely as a qualification and seeding system for the playoffs. where the reward for performing well in the entire season will match you up against a lower seeded team and give you home court advantage. the open bracket and group play in mlg should be considered as part of the playoffs already, instead of less important regular season type games.
I think it's very hard, both to the viewers and to the players, to consider a match in group play where one of the players is already qualified, in the first day of the tournament, as important as the semi-finals or finals. I have a very hard looking at the pool play the same way I would look at the play-offs, and I doubt that was their idea when designing the rules. (The pool play, by the way only serves for seeding, which should make it equivalent to the regular season, imo)
On June 07 2011 09:39 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
EDIT: Arguments against this invariably bring up Player X, Y, Z scenarios. The purpose of the tournament is not to find the best player (as that is impossible); the purpose is to find out who is playing the best that day, in that circumstance. Taking this principle, it should be evident that it's easier (read: better) to compare players A and B by themselves than to compare A, B, C, D, E.....Z. (Players A and B are in the finals, but really player C is the best because the margin with which he lost to player D, who beat player A, is smaller than the margin player B lost player G....). And, again, taking this principle that we are trying to isolate a measurable scenario instead of some wide sweeping conclusion, it should be obvious that it's better to only use a game as a standard and not series. Thus we have an extended series where the players are judge by which games they win, not by which series they win. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins. Why does every single person who defends extended series keep repeating this one point? Why do you ignore the mountain of evidence that regular double elimination is better and fairer? Why do you ignore all of the problems that extended series introduces? I want an extended-series defender to answer some of these questions. 1) Idra defeated MC, his reward was a shorter path to reach the finals, and he got to travel that path with a lifeline (being able to lose a matchup but still be in the tournament). He won only 1 more matchup, then lost to MMA. MC had to defeat four straight opponents to reach the same point as Idra, and couldn't have any losses along the way. Since the first match, MC had to win 8 games to reach this point and Idra only had to win 2. Both MC and Idra have lost to one other player in the tournament. MC has already been at a great disadvantage... how in the world is it fair to require him to win 4-1 or 4-0 when he's already been punished hard for his loss? 2) Thorzain and Ret have been having equal performances. Both did well at first, then got sent to the losers bracket. Both go 2-1 in their next losers bracket matchup. Ret advances, but Thorzain does not advance because he was unlucky enough to have run into a rematch in the bracket. Why should pure luck in the brackets determine who advances and who is eliminated? 3) Naniwa and Idra have been having equal performances. Both went far into the winners bracket, then lost in the semifinals. Idra's next match is a bo7 with a 2-0 lead, Naniwa's next match is a bo3 with a 0-0 start. Why should identically performing players be treated differently due to luck? 4) In the losers bracket finals was Losira vs MC. If one player advances, then MMA begins the finals with a huge advantage. If the other player advances, MMA has no advantage. Why should the winners bracket champion randomly have or not have an advantage in the finals? 5) Losira advanced to the winners bracket finals without taking a loss, while MC took early losses and had to fight his way back up to contention. But somehow if Losira advances to the grand finals he deserves to have a huge disadvantage... and if MC advances he does not have a disadvantage? What kind of sense does that make? 6) Two-game grand finals are stupid. Agree or disagree? -------------- I challenge anyone who thinks that extended series is a good thing to answer these questions, and explain to me how introducing all of these large problems is worth it in order to solve a small problem that no one ever complained about in the first place.
While I agree with most of your points, if the Finals was MMA vs MC, MMA would have to win 1 bo3, while MC would have to win 2 bo3. So the finals would still take 2 possibly 2 games, unless they change it for bo5s instead, but that's a whole other problem to discuss. And MMA would still have a big advantage.
|
On June 07 2011 09:40 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 09:36 IrrasO wrote:On June 07 2011 09:17 SKC wrote:On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
EDIT: Arguments against this invariably bring up Player X, Y, Z scenarios. The purpose of the tournament is not to find the best player (as that is impossible); the purpose is to find out who is playing the best that day, in that circumstance. Taking this principle, it should be evident that it's easier (read: better) to compare players A and B by themselves than to compare A, B, C, D, E.....Z. (Players A and B are in the finals, but really player C is the best because the margin with which he lost to player D, who beat player A, is smaller than the margin player B lost player G....). And, again, taking this principle that we are trying to isolate a measurable scenario instead of some wide sweeping conclusion, it should be obvious that it's better to only use a game as a standard and not series. Thus we have an extended series where the players are judge by which games they win, not by which series they win. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins. Which is correct? Look at basically any sport as see how team that can win in the last stages of the tournament are praised for having the ability to rise when the situation demands it. It's pretty common to see the team with the best overall record NOT win the tournament, because in a eliminations format, winning in the play-offs matters more. If you want the team with the best overall record to win, you need a league format, where everyone playes everyone, the same amount of games and you count the results against everyone, not just the 2 teams. It's also pretty common for the champion to have lost against the second placed team 2 times in league. Noone says it's unfair. this is really just a matter of perception. the entire mlg tournament can be seen as the postseason for a major sport. the regular season in let's say basketball serves merely as a qualification and seeding system for the playoffs. where the reward for performing well in the entire season will match you up against a lower seeded team and give you home court advantage. the open bracket and group play in mlg should be considered as part of the playoffs already, instead of less important regular season type games. I think it's very hard, both to the viewers and to the players, to consider a match in group play where one of the players is already qualified, in the first day of the tournament, as important as the semi-finals or finals. I have a very hard looking at the pool play the same way I would look at the play-offs, and I doubt that was their idea when designing the rules. (The pool play, by the way only serves for seeding, which should make it equivalent to the regular season, imo) Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 09:39 Chocobo wrote:On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
EDIT: Arguments against this invariably bring up Player X, Y, Z scenarios. The purpose of the tournament is not to find the best player (as that is impossible); the purpose is to find out who is playing the best that day, in that circumstance. Taking this principle, it should be evident that it's easier (read: better) to compare players A and B by themselves than to compare A, B, C, D, E.....Z. (Players A and B are in the finals, but really player C is the best because the margin with which he lost to player D, who beat player A, is smaller than the margin player B lost player G....). And, again, taking this principle that we are trying to isolate a measurable scenario instead of some wide sweeping conclusion, it should be obvious that it's better to only use a game as a standard and not series. Thus we have an extended series where the players are judge by which games they win, not by which series they win. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins. Why does every single person who defends extended series keep repeating this one point? Why do you ignore the mountain of evidence that regular double elimination is better and fairer? Why do you ignore all of the problems that extended series introduces? I want an extended-series defender to answer some of these questions. 1) Idra defeated MC, his reward was a shorter path to reach the finals, and he got to travel that path with a lifeline (being able to lose a matchup but still be in the tournament). He won only 1 more matchup, then lost to MMA. MC had to defeat four straight opponents to reach the same point as Idra, and couldn't have any losses along the way. Since the first match, MC had to win 8 games to reach this point and Idra only had to win 2. Both MC and Idra have lost to one other player in the tournament. MC has already been at a great disadvantage... how in the world is it fair to require him to win 4-1 or 4-0 when he's already been punished hard for his loss? 2) Thorzain and Ret have been having equal performances. Both did well at first, then got sent to the losers bracket. Both go 2-1 in their next losers bracket matchup. Ret advances, but Thorzain does not advance because he was unlucky enough to have run into a rematch in the bracket. Why should pure luck in the brackets determine who advances and who is eliminated? 3) Naniwa and Idra have been having equal performances. Both went far into the winners bracket, then lost in the semifinals. Idra's next match is a bo7 with a 2-0 lead, Naniwa's next match is a bo3 with a 0-0 start. Why should identically performing players be treated differently due to luck? 4) In the losers bracket finals was Losira vs MC. If one player advances, then MMA begins the finals with a huge advantage. If the other player advances, MMA has no advantage. Why should the winners bracket champion randomly have or not have an advantage in the finals? 5) Losira advanced to the winners bracket finals without taking a loss, while MC took early losses and had to fight his way back up to contention. But somehow if Losira advances to the grand finals he deserves to have a huge disadvantage... and if MC advances he does not have a disadvantage? What kind of sense does that make? 6) Two-game grand finals are stupid. Agree or disagree? -------------- I challenge anyone who thinks that extended series is a good thing to answer these questions, and explain to me how introducing all of these large problems is worth it in order to solve a small problem that no one ever complained about in the first place. While I agree with most of your points, if the Finals was MMA vs MC, MMA would have to win 1 bo3, while MC would have to win 2 bo3. So the finals would still take 2 possibly 2 games, unless they change it for bo5s instead, but that's a whole other problem to discuss. And MMA would still have a big advantage.
the pool play really isn't just for seeding. they are already seeded when the groups are made for the pools. if it really were for seeding then out of group play, the entire tournament bracket would reset and start from round 1 where everyone who participated in groups would have to play again from the very beginning. instead depending on how well they performed and where they finished in their respective groups, they will either continue on in the winner's bracket semi-finals or somewhere in loser's.
a more traditional version of groups that you may be thinking about could be like what was implemented in dreamhack. where they had groups of 4 with the top 2 advancing. they were then seeded into the bracket with the first seed of a group being matched up with the second seed of another, all starting in the same round of the tournament with a clean slate.
|
It's a combination of seeds, open bracket, pool play, double elemination and extended series that doesn't fit well together.
Simply removing extended series would probably not solve anything alone...
Imo they should remove either loosers bracket or pool play (and extended series).
I would prefer no lb and a good seeding system to try and avoid good players going out before group or pool play and ofc some seeded directly into the pools. After pool play just have regular play offs with bo5 semis and bo7 finals for greit entertainment value.
or they could have double elemination without group play or extended series with 2 bo3 in the finals... which would be pretty lame, but still better than the current setup!
|
On June 07 2011 09:39 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
EDIT: Arguments against this invariably bring up Player X, Y, Z scenarios. The purpose of the tournament is not to find the best player (as that is impossible); the purpose is to find out who is playing the best that day, in that circumstance. Taking this principle, it should be evident that it's easier (read: better) to compare players A and B by themselves than to compare A, B, C, D, E.....Z. (Players A and B are in the finals, but really player C is the best because the margin with which he lost to player D, who beat player A, is smaller than the margin player B lost player G....). And, again, taking this principle that we are trying to isolate a measurable scenario instead of some wide sweeping conclusion, it should be obvious that it's better to only use a game as a standard and not series. Thus we have an extended series where the players are judge by which games they win, not by which series they win. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins. Why does every single person who defends extended series keep repeating this one point? Why do you ignore the mountain of evidence that regular double elimination is better and fairer? Why do you ignore all of the problems that extended series introduces? I want an extended-series defender to answer some of these questions. 1) Idra defeated MC, his reward was a shorter path to reach the finals, and he got to travel that path with a lifeline (being able to lose a matchup but still be in the tournament). He won only 1 more matchup, then lost to MMA. MC had to defeat four straight opponents to reach the same point as Idra, and couldn't have any losses along the way. Since the first match, MC had to win 8 games to reach this point and Idra only had to win 2. Both MC and Idra have lost to one other player in the tournament. MC has already been at a great disadvantage... how in the world is it fair to require him to win 4-1 or 4-0 when he's already been punished hard for his loss? 2) Thorzain and Ret have been having equal performances. Both did well at first, then got sent to the losers bracket. Both go 2-1 in their next losers bracket matchup. Ret advances, but Thorzain does not advance because he was unlucky enough to have run into a rematch in the bracket. Why should pure luck in the brackets determine who advances and who is eliminated? 3) Naniwa and Idra have been having equal performances. Both went far into the winners bracket, then lost in the semifinals. Idra's next match is a bo7 with a 2-0 lead, Naniwa's next match is a bo3 with a 0-0 start. Why should identically performing players be treated differently due to luck? 4) In the losers bracket finals was Losira vs MC. If one player advances, then MMA begins the finals with a huge advantage. If the other player advances, MMA has no advantage. Why should the winners bracket champion randomly have or not have an advantage in the finals? 5) Losira advanced to the winners bracket finals without taking a loss, while MC took early losses and had to fight his way back up to contention. But somehow if Losira advances to the grand finals he deserves to have a huge disadvantage... and if MC advances he does not have a disadvantage? What kind of sense does that make? 6) Two-game grand finals are stupid. Agree or disagree? -------------- I challenge anyone who thinks that extended series is a good thing to answer these questions, and explain to me how introducing all of these large problems is worth it in order to solve a small problem that no one ever complained about in the first place.
Very well put, sir. These 6 points are what makes the extended series horrible, and damaging to the overall experience of the MLG events.
As for your challenge, I would love to extend it to MLG + staff as well.
|
I think this rule is fair
Let's think about it
We have 2 players, A and B
The first time A and B play in a series, A wins
Scenario where there is no extended series rule:
If A and B meet again, and B wins, then B's victory is a lot more valuable than the win A had over B earlier.
Why? Because it's later in the tournament, and the further you go, each match is that much more valuable
Moreover, even if the two series had equal weighting, A has won 1 series, B has won 1 series. Do we give the advantage to B because he won later on in the tournament?
Scenario where there IS extended series rule:
If A and B meet again, then A's earlier victory gives him the advantage; he won the series and earned this advantage. In order to make up for it, B has to win an extended series to be considered a true victor
|
United States78 Posts
The idea of playing two bo3s sounds way better than giving someone an advantage in one single series just because they won their previous meeting.
|
On June 07 2011 10:19 JerKy wrote:
I think this rule is fair
Let's think about it
We have 2 players, A and B
The first time A and B play in a series, A wins
Scenario where there is no extended series rule:
If A and B meet again, and B wins, then B's victory is a lot more valuable than the win A had over B earlier.
Why? Because it's later in the tournament, and the further you go, each match is that much more valuable.
Yes. Because player B has gone through way more to get to a point where he can face player A again. The further you go in a tournament, the more important are the matches. You said it.
Moreover, even if the two series had equal weighting, A has won 1 series, B has won 1 series. Do we give the advantage to B because he won later on in the tournament?
Yes. Yes we do. By the logic stated above.
|
On June 07 2011 09:56 IrrasO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 09:40 SKC wrote:On June 07 2011 09:36 IrrasO wrote:On June 07 2011 09:17 SKC wrote:On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
EDIT: Arguments against this invariably bring up Player X, Y, Z scenarios. The purpose of the tournament is not to find the best player (as that is impossible); the purpose is to find out who is playing the best that day, in that circumstance. Taking this principle, it should be evident that it's easier (read: better) to compare players A and B by themselves than to compare A, B, C, D, E.....Z. (Players A and B are in the finals, but really player C is the best because the margin with which he lost to player D, who beat player A, is smaller than the margin player B lost player G....). And, again, taking this principle that we are trying to isolate a measurable scenario instead of some wide sweeping conclusion, it should be obvious that it's better to only use a game as a standard and not series. Thus we have an extended series where the players are judge by which games they win, not by which series they win. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins. Which is correct? Look at basically any sport as see how team that can win in the last stages of the tournament are praised for having the ability to rise when the situation demands it. It's pretty common to see the team with the best overall record NOT win the tournament, because in a eliminations format, winning in the play-offs matters more. If you want the team with the best overall record to win, you need a league format, where everyone playes everyone, the same amount of games and you count the results against everyone, not just the 2 teams. It's also pretty common for the champion to have lost against the second placed team 2 times in league. Noone says it's unfair. this is really just a matter of perception. the entire mlg tournament can be seen as the postseason for a major sport. the regular season in let's say basketball serves merely as a qualification and seeding system for the playoffs. where the reward for performing well in the entire season will match you up against a lower seeded team and give you home court advantage. the open bracket and group play in mlg should be considered as part of the playoffs already, instead of less important regular season type games. I think it's very hard, both to the viewers and to the players, to consider a match in group play where one of the players is already qualified, in the first day of the tournament, as important as the semi-finals or finals. I have a very hard looking at the pool play the same way I would look at the play-offs, and I doubt that was their idea when designing the rules. (The pool play, by the way only serves for seeding, which should make it equivalent to the regular season, imo) On June 07 2011 09:39 Chocobo wrote:On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
EDIT: Arguments against this invariably bring up Player X, Y, Z scenarios. The purpose of the tournament is not to find the best player (as that is impossible); the purpose is to find out who is playing the best that day, in that circumstance. Taking this principle, it should be evident that it's easier (read: better) to compare players A and B by themselves than to compare A, B, C, D, E.....Z. (Players A and B are in the finals, but really player C is the best because the margin with which he lost to player D, who beat player A, is smaller than the margin player B lost player G....). And, again, taking this principle that we are trying to isolate a measurable scenario instead of some wide sweeping conclusion, it should be obvious that it's better to only use a game as a standard and not series. Thus we have an extended series where the players are judge by which games they win, not by which series they win. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins. Why does every single person who defends extended series keep repeating this one point? Why do you ignore the mountain of evidence that regular double elimination is better and fairer? Why do you ignore all of the problems that extended series introduces? I want an extended-series defender to answer some of these questions. 1) Idra defeated MC, his reward was a shorter path to reach the finals, and he got to travel that path with a lifeline (being able to lose a matchup but still be in the tournament). He won only 1 more matchup, then lost to MMA. MC had to defeat four straight opponents to reach the same point as Idra, and couldn't have any losses along the way. Since the first match, MC had to win 8 games to reach this point and Idra only had to win 2. Both MC and Idra have lost to one other player in the tournament. MC has already been at a great disadvantage... how in the world is it fair to require him to win 4-1 or 4-0 when he's already been punished hard for his loss? 2) Thorzain and Ret have been having equal performances. Both did well at first, then got sent to the losers bracket. Both go 2-1 in their next losers bracket matchup. Ret advances, but Thorzain does not advance because he was unlucky enough to have run into a rematch in the bracket. Why should pure luck in the brackets determine who advances and who is eliminated? 3) Naniwa and Idra have been having equal performances. Both went far into the winners bracket, then lost in the semifinals. Idra's next match is a bo7 with a 2-0 lead, Naniwa's next match is a bo3 with a 0-0 start. Why should identically performing players be treated differently due to luck? 4) In the losers bracket finals was Losira vs MC. If one player advances, then MMA begins the finals with a huge advantage. If the other player advances, MMA has no advantage. Why should the winners bracket champion randomly have or not have an advantage in the finals? 5) Losira advanced to the winners bracket finals without taking a loss, while MC took early losses and had to fight his way back up to contention. But somehow if Losira advances to the grand finals he deserves to have a huge disadvantage... and if MC advances he does not have a disadvantage? What kind of sense does that make? 6) Two-game grand finals are stupid. Agree or disagree? -------------- I challenge anyone who thinks that extended series is a good thing to answer these questions, and explain to me how introducing all of these large problems is worth it in order to solve a small problem that no one ever complained about in the first place. While I agree with most of your points, if the Finals was MMA vs MC, MMA would have to win 1 bo3, while MC would have to win 2 bo3. So the finals would still take 2 possibly 2 games, unless they change it for bo5s instead, but that's a whole other problem to discuss. And MMA would still have a big advantage. the pool play really isn't just for seeding. they are already seeded when the groups are made for the pools. if it really were for seeding then out of group play, the entire tournament bracket would reset and start from round 1 where everyone who participated in groups would have to play again from the very beginning. instead depending on how well they performed and where they finished in their respective groups, they will either continue on in the winner's bracket semi-finals or somewhere in loser's. a more traditional version of groups that you may be thinking about could be like what was implemented in dreamhack. where they had groups of 4 with the top 2 advancing. they were then seeded into the bracket with the first seed of a group being matched up with the second seed of another, all starting in the same round of the tournament with a clean slate.
It's not unheard of having higher seeded players skip matches. What pool play does is seed players in diferent spots of the tournament, but since it's results don't count towards the rest of the competition (like a league) or towards elimination (like a single or double elimination) what would you consider it if not seeding? It's impossible to say it's the same part of the tournament as the rest, since it works in a completelly diferent way.
If it's my phrasing that's the problem, I will put it in a diferent way.
The pool play in MLG is not a format where every match means life or death (or close to it, in double elimination), if you could compare it to another sport, it would be a lot closer to the regular season than the play-offs, or group stage than play-offs, since the only thing it affect is how easy or hard your road to the title is, arguably, you can say it is even less important, because you can lose every single game in your group and still win the tournament.
Not only the results in a latter, eliminatory stage, should be more important, any format that could give the player coming from the loser's bracket an advantage over the player from the winner's bracket is just not well though out has doesn't care enough about the performance of the players against others compared to their perfomance against themselfs.
There is no practical example because noone else uses a format like this. The whole point is:
They said a player has to have a better record in the tournament than the other to be considered better and eliminate him. There is no reason not to consider the open season or groups stage part of the tournament, so it makes little sense supporting it at MLG but not everywhere else.
|
On June 07 2011 10:19 JerKy wrote:
Moreover, even if the two series had equal weighting, A has won 1 series, B has won 1 series. Do we give the advantage to B because he won later on in the tournament?
Pretty much, yeah.
IF the idea behind double elimination is to give the players who lose a "second chance", then he should get that second chance with no strings attached and no handicap in future games.
If not, then just don't give him a second chance in the first place.
It's incredibly frustrating both for the player and his fans to have him run through a losers bracket gauntlet only to meet the guy that knocked him out there in the first place and have to play at a massive disadvantage.
|
On June 07 2011 09:40 SKC wrote:
While I agree with most of your points, if the Finals was MMA vs MC, MMA would have to win 1 bo3, while MC would have to win 2 bo3. So the finals would still take 2 possibly 2 games, unless they change it for bo5s instead, but that's a whole other problem to discuss. And MMA would still have a big advantage.
MC having to win 2 Bo3 (or 5) if he faced MMA is completely NORMAL! No extended series bullshit is in this scenario. MC would have come from the loser's bracket and MMA was still undefeated. Rules of a standard double elimination tournament is exactly you think it means: you lose 2 series and you're out.
The extended series gives the previous winner in a rematch a total of THREE series to lose before he's out. It's strictly an unfair advantage.
|
I dont like the extended series rule however. i think the semifinal rounds should be a fest of 5, and the finals a best of 7. would make the last matches that much more intense imo
|
Makes for some very uninteresting finals.
|
On June 07 2011 10:18 arQ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 09:39 Chocobo wrote:On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
EDIT: Arguments against this invariably bring up Player X, Y, Z scenarios. The purpose of the tournament is not to find the best player (as that is impossible); the purpose is to find out who is playing the best that day, in that circumstance. Taking this principle, it should be evident that it's easier (read: better) to compare players A and B by themselves than to compare A, B, C, D, E.....Z. (Players A and B are in the finals, but really player C is the best because the margin with which he lost to player D, who beat player A, is smaller than the margin player B lost player G....). And, again, taking this principle that we are trying to isolate a measurable scenario instead of some wide sweeping conclusion, it should be obvious that it's better to only use a game as a standard and not series. Thus we have an extended series where the players are judge by which games they win, not by which series they win. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins. Why does every single person who defends extended series keep repeating this one point? Why do you ignore the mountain of evidence that regular double elimination is better and fairer? Why do you ignore all of the problems that extended series introduces? I want an extended-series defender to answer some of these questions. 1) Idra defeated MC, his reward was a shorter path to reach the finals, and he got to travel that path with a lifeline (being able to lose a matchup but still be in the tournament). He won only 1 more matchup, then lost to MMA. MC had to defeat four straight opponents to reach the same point as Idra, and couldn't have any losses along the way. Since the first match, MC had to win 8 games to reach this point and Idra only had to win 2. Both MC and Idra have lost to one other player in the tournament. MC has already been at a great disadvantage... how in the world is it fair to require him to win 4-1 or 4-0 when he's already been punished hard for his loss? 2) Thorzain and Ret have been having equal performances. Both did well at first, then got sent to the losers bracket. Both go 2-1 in their next losers bracket matchup. Ret advances, but Thorzain does not advance because he was unlucky enough to have run into a rematch in the bracket. Why should pure luck in the brackets determine who advances and who is eliminated? 3) Naniwa and Idra have been having equal performances. Both went far into the winners bracket, then lost in the semifinals. Idra's next match is a bo7 with a 2-0 lead, Naniwa's next match is a bo3 with a 0-0 start. Why should identically performing players be treated differently due to luck? 4) In the losers bracket finals was Losira vs MC. If one player advances, then MMA begins the finals with a huge advantage. If the other player advances, MMA has no advantage. Why should the winners bracket champion randomly have or not have an advantage in the finals? 5) Losira advanced to the winners bracket finals without taking a loss, while MC took early losses and had to fight his way back up to contention. But somehow if Losira advances to the grand finals he deserves to have a huge disadvantage... and if MC advances he does not have a disadvantage? What kind of sense does that make? 6) Two-game grand finals are stupid. Agree or disagree? -------------- I challenge anyone who thinks that extended series is a good thing to answer these questions, and explain to me how introducing all of these large problems is worth it in order to solve a small problem that no one ever complained about in the first place. Very well put, sir. These 6 points are what makes the extended series horrible, and damaging to the overall experience of the MLG events. As for your challenge, I would love to extend it to MLG + staff as well.
MMA would have an advantage vs. MC, it would be 2 bo3's I believe for MC to win, so that point's not valid.
|
I would scrap it and make the finals bo5 regardless of whether or not they played previously because its a totally different set of circumstances.
|
On June 07 2011 10:28 Lunchador wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 09:40 SKC wrote:
While I agree with most of your points, if the Finals was MMA vs MC, MMA would have to win 1 bo3, while MC would have to win 2 bo3. So the finals would still take 2 possibly 2 games, unless they change it for bo5s instead, but that's a whole other problem to discuss. And MMA would still have a big advantage. MC having to win 2 Bo3 (or 5) if he faced MMA is completely NORMAL! No extended series bullshit is in this scenario. MC would have come from the loser's bracket and MMA was still undefeated. Rules of a standard double elimination tournament is exactly you think it means: you lose 2 series and you're out. The extended series gives the previous winner in a rematch a total of THREE series to lose before he's out. It's strictly an unfair advantage.
I'm not saying it isn't? I'm just correcting his post, a lot of people here are using wrong arguments, like extended series is good, it means the guy fromt the winners bracket has an advantage, or extended series is bad, it makes it possible for the finals to end with 2 games.
But it still not really correct to say it gives the previous winner three series to lose. The finals are the place it actually affects the tournament the least.
It's either start it 0-2 or 1-2 in a bo7, or having to win 2 bo3 in a row. You could say it actually gives the guy from the WB a smaller advantage, possibly starting only 1 game ahead is probally worse than only having to win 1 bo3 compared to 2.
|
The only situation in which I prefer extended series to regular double elim is the finals. (Person from winners bracket has to win a bo3, person from losers bracket has to win a bo7, but IMO they ought to start with a clean record.) Aside from that, it gives too much of an advantage to someone who won earlier on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
