|
On November 08 2010 06:07 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
These two players have already played so the winner gets some sort of an advantage.
The problem is: Why?
Philosophically a lot of alarm bells went off in my head when I learned of this system. To me its obviously riddled with chance and arbitrary obstructions for arbitrary players.
Why should a player get an advantage against what is essentially an random opponent?
Lets go through a scenario. Completely thought up ofc:
You can have ThorzainA and ThorzainB. Two identical players. A is the pool with MC and loses to him 2-0 for whatever reasons. The players being identical, B would also have lost to MC, had he been in the same pool.
Now in the Championsship bracket both those players are placed beneath MC. (Thats already one price payed for worse pool play.)
Now, if T-A meets MC he needs to win two matches against him to progress. If T-B meets MC he only needs to win one. In the situation where the two Thorzains are capable of winning one match against MC, before the momentum swinging back - one will progress and one will not.
And that will all be due to the chance that placed one of them initially into MCs pool.
Making vital parts of the tournament a lottery.
|
On June 07 2011 16:14 dakalro wrote:
In the context of double elimination tournaments I do think it is quite fair. If you think about it the purpose of a tournament if finding out who the best player is. If they played once before in the same tournament should those results be discounted?
Take Thorzain - MC for example. MC ended the series 4-2 but without extended series Thorzain would have won even if within the same tournament MC would have been ahead in games won.
Yes it is a weird rule, but in this context, with the convoluted play system it seems fair. It is just an acknowledgement of the fact that the entirety of the games those 2 players play during the tournament is taken into account.
The only other option I see for fair judgement would be to play 3xBo3s and give the win to the first to win 2 Bo3s.
That first sentence makes no sense in the context of your argument.
The context of a double elimination tournament is that when you lose 2 series you are out of the tournament. By having extended series or your 3xBo3's - we make it a triple elimination tournament for some players in some situations. (as the winner of the first series now can lose the equivalent of a second series and still be in the tournament).
Both players have lost 1 series - so they should have equal opportunity to move on regardless of what happened previously in the tournament. No one should be at a disadvantage at this point because they both used up 1 out of 2 losses.
If, we say, we want the better player to move on - then maybe instead of a Bo3 - we say they must play a Bo5 starting at 0-0. Since people will argue the more games that are played - the better player will most definitely win. This, therefore makes both players have an even chance of moving on (maintaining double elimination integrity) and it would, in theory, allow the better player to move on.
I actually think this is a way better solution that I hope people will see and agree with. It also allows us to have more games - which who doesn't want more games??
|
On June 07 2011 16:14 dakalro wrote:
In the context of double elimination tournaments I do think it is quite fair. If you think about it the purpose of a tournament if finding out who the best player is. If they played once before in the same tournament should those results be discounted?
Take Thorzain - MC for example. MC ended the series 4-2 but without extended series Thorzain would have won even if within the same tournament MC would have been ahead in games won.
Yes it is a weird rule, but in this context, with the convoluted play system it seems fair. It is just an acknowledgement of the fact that the entirety of the games those 2 players play during the tournament is taken into account.
The only other option I see for fair judgement would be to play 3xBo3s and give the win to the first to win 2 Bo3s.
Well, but let's say Thorzain and MC had to play a bo9 (which would be statistically even better), could you say that MC would have won it? (probably, but maybe not)
I appreciate that fact that MLG wants to determine the better player, yet I think that each game should have a purpose. The group stages to determine where you are seeded, the elimination bracket to determine a winner. If you mix those stuff, you give people a double advantage.
(Just think about Thorzain and MC. MC got the better seed because he won the first two games. Then Thorzain won the next two games, and got nothing. Then MC won 2games and advanced)
|
I think the extended series rule is a good idea. That is because in NORMAL tournament structure- you've won and knocked the fool out.
The extended series is giving the winner and advantage BECAUSE the losers bracket is there. Normally you wouldn't have to beat the same guy twice to win a tourny, and neither should you have to. It's the same tournament, and I think it's a near perfect structure. It seems to me that the good players always rise to the top.
Look a the results of this tournament. With the combination of the losers bracket saving you from a haphazard elimination, and the extended series rule still providing advantage to a player who has already defeated someone, things really work out well.
|
I don't think it's THAT big of a deal.
But it would be akin to the NBA playoffs where a 3 seed vs a 8 seed occurred in the conference finals. The 8 seed already had the disadvantage of having to beat the number 1 seed and the number 4 or 5 seed while the 3 seed only had to beat the 6 seed and the 2 or 7 seed. That's the advantage for having a better regular season record.
Now imagine the 3 seed gets to use its season record vs the 8 seed and the series is now a best of 11 with 4 games played in the regular season or a best of 7 with only 2 games played. That'd be absurd because most likely the 3 seed had a better record vs the 8 seed.
But an interesting thing to note is that, in MLG, because of pool play, the player seeded lower could've beaten the higher seeded player earlier, meaning not necessarily the best player, but the player with the best matchup vs the other one is most likely to go on. So back to my NBA example, if the 8 seed had 4-0d the season series vs the 3 seed because they were a bad matchup for the 3 seed, the 8 seed would be heavily favored.
|
I like how a majority of the people in favor of the extended series either doesn't exactly know what is being debated or is confused about the double elimination format as a whole.
|
On June 07 2011 16:30 cursor wrote:
I think the extended series rule is a good idea. That is because in NORMAL tournament structure- you've won and knocked the fool out.
The extended series is giving the winner and advantage BECAUSE the losers bracket is there. Normally you wouldn't have to beat the same guy twice to win a tourny, and neither should you have to. It's the same tournament, and I think it's a near perfect structure. It seems to me that the good players always rise to the top.
It's a double elimination tournament... not a "normal" tournament. In the context of a double elimination tournament - it turns it into a triple elimination for some people. Fair? No.
On June 07 2011 16:26 HeadDesk wrote:
The context of a double elimination tournament is that when you lose 2 series you are out of the tournament. By having extended series or your 3xBo3's - we make it a triple elimination tournament for some players in some situations. (as the winner of the first series now can lose the equivalent of a second series and still be in the tournament).
Both players have lost 1 series - so they should have equal opportunity to move on regardless of what happened previously in the tournament. No one should be at a disadvantage at this point because they both used up 1 out of 2 losses.
I think another thing is that most of the posts here assume that the first guy to win the series is the better player - so we should give them an advantage. What if Idra gets 2-0'd by some no name from the Open Bracket and then plays him in the Loser's bracket and goes 3-2 (therefore extended series loses 4-3). Say he won the first 3 straight in the Loser's Bracket series.
In a true double elimination tournament he moves on, extended series he doesn't. (Just a what-if scenario - not saying this would actually happen). (also, we just gave the no name a "free" loss (essentially having a triple elimination tournament - a person having this in multiple series in the loser's bracket could potentially have a quadruple and up elimination tournament).
Both players should have an equal opportunity to move on because they both have used 1 out of 2 losses.
On June 07 2011 16:40 Fubi wrote:
I like how a majority of the people in favor of the extended series either doesn't exactly know what is being debated or is confused about the double elimination format as a whole.
This ^^ So many flawed arguments.
|
On June 07 2011 16:49 HeadDesk wrote:
It's a double elimination tournament... not a "normal" tournament.
No it is not!
Regardless of how many times you claim it to be. You obviously do not understand the system as a whole, it is a group play combined with an open bracket connected via a repechage bracket.
|
On June 07 2011 17:12 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 16:49 HeadDesk wrote:
It's a double elimination tournament... not a "normal" tournament. No it is not!Regardless of how many times you claim it to be. You obviously do not understand the system as a whole, it is a group play combined with an open bracket connected via a repechage bracket.
Ok, not completely a double elimination bracket. The group stage SEEDS you into the double elimination bracket. And - extended series only comes into effect in the double elimination bracket. No one has an issue with the group play - just the double elimination stage.
|
On June 07 2011 18:15 HeadDesk wrote:
No one has an issue with the group play - just the double elimination stage. Again, you take the wrong look at the system, IMO.
I know the systems seem very similar, but they are very different in intention.
You see it as a double elimination tournament with an arbitrary group stage just for seeding (Like there would not be enough first rate duels with are pure elimination bracket otherwise).
But this is not what this structure is.
This is first and foremost a group tournament (just like past ice hockey Olympics). They could have for example simply let the non-winners of the group stages be eliminated, just the best four fight for the crown. But because they wanted to give players a second chance (even the open bracket guys), they added a repechage tree. But the 'eliminated' group players have to redeem themselves, only if they can completely turn around their results against their previous opponents do they gain the right to stay in the tournament.
So you disregard the group stage as a simple method of seeding into the 'real' tournament, when it is in fact (nearly) the other way around, the group stage is an integral part of the elimination, there is just one tiny backdoor left open for the occasional hero comeback.
|
The winner of the a match already gets an inherent edge within the tournament. The loser of the match has an inherent disadvantage going forward in the tournament. No more penalties or advantages need to be levied on the players.
|
I would much prefer a standard winner/looserbracket format without extended series. I think the format of MLG with open bracket and championship bracket(?) is a much bigger problem, it´s way to favourable to the people who make top 16 at the first event of the year.
|
On June 07 2011 18:57 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 18:15 HeadDesk wrote:
No one has an issue with the group play - just the double elimination stage. Again, you take the wrong look at the system, IMO. I know the systems seem very similar, but they are very different in intention. You see it as a double elimination tournament with an arbitrary group stage just for seeding (Like there would not be enough first rate duels with are pure elimination bracket otherwise). But this is not what this structure is. This is first and foremost a group tournament (just like past ice hockey Olympics). They could have for example simply let the non-winners of the group stages be eliminated, just the best four fight for the crown. But because they wanted to give players a second chance (even the open bracket guys), they added a repechage tree. But the 'eliminated' group players have to redeem themselves, only if they can completely turn around their results against their previous opponents do they gain the right to stay in the tournament. So you disregard the group stage as a simple method of seeding into the 'real' tournament, when it is in fact (nearly) the other way around, the group stage is an integral part of the elimination, there is just one tiny backdoor left open for the occasional hero comeback.
I'm not familiar with the ice hockey Olympics format - so it makes your post confusing for me. But - if a team played another team again. Because they beat the team 2-1 do they start their next hockey game with a 2-1 score and start in the 4th period? No.
The winner of the next game (series) takes it. Even if it means that the overall score ends up being tied in goals or games won.
And, I'm trying to find on MLG's website or whatever officially what they call it. Best I can find is:
"The results of Pool Play will dictate where each team/player is placed in the Championship Bracket.
Pool Play Results
1st Place – Winners Bracket Semi-Finals
2nd Place – Losers Bracket Round 6
3rd Place – Losers Bracket Round 5
4th Place – Losers Bracket Round 4
5th Place – Losers Bracket Round 3
Once Pool Play is complete, the Championship Bracket Format is identical to the 2010 Season."
as seen here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=196380
While i will say it is not definitive - from the wording (Winner's Bracket, Loser's Bracket are indicative of double elimination format) and identical to 2010 Season (which I believe was strictly a double elimination tournament with no pool play). Based on this you could make an argument that they designed it to be Pool Play seeding into a double elimination bracket though. (The double elimination tournament style was also here before Pool Play - which contributes to my perspective on it).
Really - would need someone at MLG to explain what they want their bracket to be i suppose. It's definitely not "normal" - which is what makes it so controversial.
And let me also say - I do appreciate your perspective - it's actually one of the first real argument's I've seen for keeping it the way it is - most people contradict themselves or just don't know what they're talking about.
On June 07 2011 19:16 Gurgl wrote:
I would much prefer a standard winner/looserbracket format without extended series. I think the bracket format of MLG is a much bigger problem, it´s way to favourable to the people who make top 16 at the first event of the year.
This format heavily favors those that make it into Pool Play - and it makes it extremely hard for future players to get into the Pool in tournaments as they have to play through the Open Bracket - and then if they make pool, play round robin there and do well - and then still may not get a Pool spot next tournament.
|
On June 07 2011 16:49 HeadDesk wrote:
In the context of a double elimination tournament - it turns it into a triple elimination for some people. Fair? No.
This is basically the crux of the matter.
It gives some players an extra life against players they have already taken one from - should the dice fall so they meet again. Arbitrarily handicapping some matchups differently than others in a system that should provide a second chance.
If you are going to reward the winner of the first match in a double elimination system, you might as well make it single elimination. Because thats a bitch of a second chance.
As far as the argument that A should never pass B if he is down in games against him in matchscore:
The tournament is not between A and B. Someone could have beaten MMA 2-0 in pool play and then gotten killed of in the first round of championship losers brackets.
Given the above argument: How is it fair that such a player is knocked out if MMA goes on to win. MMA is clearly not the better player of the two? Its ok, as long as MMA is lucky enough not to meet him again?
|
i like the extended series. it makes sense, it's fair. it makes every match count and lets the player with most wins against the other advance (the whole point of even doing a BoX). On the other side, having a series of BoX rounds just because "it's a double elimination bracket and it should work that way" is kinda silly (and square). The logical way would be to reduce that Best of series into a single one, with an advantage to the previous winner, that is, an extended series.
|
Extended series should not apply in pool play. They should only apply in there respective brackets(OW with OL and WB with LB). It should not translate into the different brackets. For example if Cruncher beats X 2-0 in the OB and he makes it to the championship bracket and he plays X again the result should not carry on since they are different brackets
|
It's just stupid that the grand final of such an epic tournament could be over in 2 games, it just doesn't seem right to me. Nor does having a championship bracket where 3 players from the same Group were forced in the same line on a collision course, which brings in the extended series rule into action. They should have some formula to make sure that doesn't happen until far later in the tournament.
|
It's fair and makes sense, it's just lame when someone is up 2-0 in the finals to begin with. It's just anticlimactic.
|
The 'extended series' is not only not a fair system, but it actually is NOT a double elimination series. The entire MLG system is flawed from start to finish and lacks any serious thought.
Consider that JULY played 12 MATCHES and lost 2.. and finished with nothing to show for it...
while IDRA played 16 MAPS and lost 3 matches and won 1.4K.
The finals.. if truly setup to foster a fair final.. would be a true double elimination.
Player A from winners bracket has yet to lose
Player B from losers bracket has lost once.
They meet in championship... (bo3 double elimination)
Player A wins with a 2-1 or 2-0 win over player B
Player B wins with a 2-1 or 2-0 win and another 2-1 or 2-0 win.
A lot more drama involved and quite a bit fairer of a situation.
Its pretty simple..cant believe there has been 32 pages of comments on this issue.
cheers..
|
Here's my reasoning for not liking the extended series:
I understand that there should be an advantage given to the winner and a disadvantage given to the loser.
However, there already exists these things: the winner moves on through the winner's (or, at least, shorter) bracket, and the loser has to drop down and usually play far more games to make up for losing to his opponent.
The only advantage and disadvantage I feel is necessary is the seeding.
I don't see a need for a "personal series" advantage on top of the bracket seeding advantage. The latter suffices, in my opinion. If an opponent makes it all the way through the lower bracket to face me again after I beat him once, I feel he deserves the right to play me straight-up in a best of three. By that point, I feel like he's established fairness again. He already paid his dues. Yeah, I won once already. And I was rewarded by needing to play fewer games and having fewer chances of being eliminated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
