|
On November 08 2010 10:11 Sapphire.lux wrote:
It is fair but it is stupid. Just having the possibility of having a "2 game" final (as just happened) is ridiculous.
In MLG DC we have seen a player playing a ton of games going in to the final exhausted. It is fair because they all have the same rights, but it is retarded for a RTS.
Without he rule, you can still have a two game final.
Actually I think having the extended series can be an advantage in the finals because you can bring one win with you and win with 3 wins instead of 4. You lose the possibility to win with 2 losses however.
|
What should happen given its double elimination, is that if a player is knocked to the looser bracket by another. If these too players meet up again in the loosers bracket, they should play an even series.
Because the player that fought their way though the loosers bracket to still be in the tournament, has already paid the price to be there.
However In the Grand Finals, it should be an extended series. Because of the rule of Double elimination.
Personally because, this tournament goes quickly and they only cast a few of the highlight series between people, they should have it be single elimination and make every series a best of 5.
Obviously they would have to reduced the amount of players to 64 to accommodate this.
|
On November 08 2010 09:28 PROJECTILE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 09:24 eckm wrote:
Well, PROJECTILE, 'You shouldn't have lost the first series' is even less logical than stating the (by reading your posts) obvious fact that you're an idiot
I love when kids who have taken one elementary logic class or read enough message boards to learn the ad hominem fallacy try to get all superior.. hilarious. lol. Ad hominem is not always fallacious, but it was there. Do you have anything to add? I can play this too! you're a retard! do I win? People believe it or not have been countering my arguments without resorting to insults (i've admitted my position is not 100% fullproof but based on some subjective criteria). Where's your degree in philosophy btw so we can really measure e-peens about logical debate?
Columbia University in the City of New York
Took symbolic logic with Achille Varzi
|
On November 08 2010 10:18 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 10:16 scion wrote:On November 08 2010 10:01 Pyrthas wrote:On November 08 2010 09:50 scion wrote:
The rules are fine.
It's supposed to be double elimination, if a guy that never lost in the winners bracket gets to the finals, its logical to make the guy coming from losers bracket (whos already been knocked down once) to knock him down twice.
In essence, the guy in the loser's bracket is trying to knock the guy from winners bracket into the loser's bracket, and THEN have a true final.
Otherwise it would be unfair for the guy who went undefeated in a series to face guy who lost once in an equal footing. Posts like this astound me. Do you read anything about the rule before posting? At all? what? I don't think you understand the rules yourself, how does that not make sense? Don't accuse before actually knowing the rules, or reading/comprehending my post. It's double elimination, you are supposed to get 2 chances in the tournament. If it were just 1 fair bo5 or whatever at the final, it wouldn't be fair to the guy coming from the winner's bracket. If he'd lost at the quarters or semis, he'd get another chance at the tournament. But if he loses at the final once hes gone? Don't you see? If it worked like that, the guy coming from the winner's bracket is punished by being 'exception' to the rule in that he only gets to face 1 elimination round in a double elimination tournament. Yeah, that's why MLG makes sure to give the WB player a second chance if the grand final is a rematch and the LB player wins the extended series. Oh, wait...
Yes it is kind of messed up in that way that it is not a true double elimination tournament finals.
If they were to follow a standard rule, they would have to reset the previous record and give 1 Bo3 for winner's bracket guy to win and 2 Bo3 for loser's bracket guy to win.
It does work this way if the winner's bracket guy beats the other dude 2-0 previously. Bo7 is JUST LIKE (ok not quite but this is explained in the OP as well as below) doing 2 Bo3s. If winner's guy 2-0'd the loser, it'd start at 2-0 in a Bo7 and has same result.
But for whatever reason, mlg decided to give loser a slight breathing room if the previous series were 2-1. I don't really mind this at all, because they are doing it in a extended series fashion. So it makes up in a way.
If it were 2 bo3s, if the winner guy loses both series 1-2, the guy from losers' wins. But because its extended series, if winner guy goes 1-2 first 3 games than win the next one, he wins.
But yeah I can see why people hate this system. it gives more advantage to the winner or losers depending on the result of their previous series. Maybe they should go with single elimination like the gsl.
|
On November 08 2010 10:28 Cyanocyst wrote:
Personally because, this tournament goes quickly and they only cast a few of the highlight series between people, they should have it be single elimination and make every series a best of 5.
Obviously they would have to reduced the amount of players to 64 to accommodate this.
Nah I think the lots of Bo3s system is fantastic for a tournament like this for many reasons.
I'd much rather see lots of different players playing each other then many games from the same players.
It's easier for the casters to get in when there's lots of short Bo3s.
A Bo5 rarely holds a different result to a Bo3; with the winner usually taking game1.
But mostly it's just more exciting to have the losers bracket dynamic with top players battling their way through. It makes the whole thing more epic.
Then if you agree that double elimination Bo3 is fantastic you have to decide on the little things.
From a pure analytic point of view lets have extended series and a advantage to the winner bracket in the grand final. But that point of view is not our main goal. The main goal is to create excitement for the fans.
And with that in mind get rid of all extended series and an advantage in the Grand Final.
It's still "fair" since everyone goes in knowing the rules, there's certainly no advantage to losing in the Winners Bracket final. You would still 100% want to win.
But then when you got to the Grand final you would have a real spectacle (Blizzard permitting) rather than a formality.
A proper Bo5/7 series to round off the tournament.
|
It's an absolutely atrocious rule and I literally cannot comprehend how anyone here or at MLG thinks it is an acceptable, let alone "good", rule.
With this kind of logic, if you 2-0 your previous opponent and your current opponent 2-1ed his last opponent, you should start a game up in your matchup. That's his punishment for losing a game. Obviously, that is a ridiculous statement. Your previous round situation should have no effect on the current round, save of course if you won or lost it. The next round is the next round, and shouldn't have a predetermined starting score based on previous results.
Why don't the NBA or MLB use the season head-to-head record of teams facing each other to start the playoff series score at? Or why doesn't the AL champion who sweeps his ALCS opponent get a 3-game advantage over his NL opponent that won his NLCS 4-3 over 7 games? Because it is utterly stupid and would remove the credibility from the tournament.
The main argument I've seen is that it promotes the idea of the best player advancing, but even that has no merit. If that were the case, why not use the career win/loss record of the two opponents to start the series (an equally horrible suggestion)? People don't play at the same level every day, or even at the same level throughout the course of the same day. Tournaments are all about who is playing the best AT THAT MOMENT, not who was playing better 12 hours ago or yesterday. Do they really think that giving one player an advantage over another (whom have BOTH ALREADY LOST a series) is promoting the best player advancing? Really, if this is their thinking, they need to just run a round robin league and name a champion at the end and forget about tournaments altogether.
If they truly wanted the best players to advance, why not just make the whole tournament bo7 single elimination? I believe that would be similar to the total games in the current format, less confusion for spectators and players, less downtime between matchups (more accurately, less matchups to have downtime between), and severely decrease the luck element.
Basically, they are contradicting themselves. They say they want to promote the best player winning, but they introduce a format that increases the luck element. And whenever you increase the element of luck, you decrease the edge that skill grants you.
|
On November 08 2010 10:31 eckm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 09:28 PROJECTILE wrote:On November 08 2010 09:24 eckm wrote:
Well, PROJECTILE, 'You shouldn't have lost the first series' is even less logical than stating the (by reading your posts) obvious fact that you're an idiot
I love when kids who have taken one elementary logic class or read enough message boards to learn the ad hominem fallacy try to get all superior.. hilarious. lol. Ad hominem is not always fallacious, but it was there. Do you have anything to add? I can play this too! you're a retard! do I win? People believe it or not have been countering my arguments without resorting to insults (i've admitted my position is not 100% fullproof but based on some subjective criteria). Where's your degree in philosophy btw so we can really measure e-peens about logical debate? Columbia University in the City of New York Took symbolic logic with Achille Varzi
It must suck to lose to someone that is studying statistics and has only taken a couple formal logic classes for fun then :D
|
I don't think your poll is very good/accurate.
I say this because I do believe that it is in fact technically 'fair' however I do think that every series should be a new slate. With things like maps being such a big influencing factor, valid points get raised in regards to advantages.
I personally would like to see it just be straight double elim bo3 with no extended series rule.
|
United States4126 Posts
I don't understand the rule in that I don't understand why it's used at all. Completely retarded concept imo. Every BoX series should be an isolated event no matter where or when the players met eachother prior in the bracket.
|
I don't like the rule at all. The winner already gains an advantage by WINNING, and being able to continue in the winners bracket where the loser gets dropped down and can be eliminated in ever series afterward.
If they meet up again it should be it's own isolated event.
|
It's a horrible rule that completely screws over players. Look what happened to AhhBoxxah: Faces Agh in his first tournament match ever (not to mention it was being live streamed) obviously gets nervous and makes some stupid mistakes to lose 1-2. Faces Agh the next day and takes him 2-1 just to get knocked out of the tournament because Agh could tie it to 2-2 with map choice.
|
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
|
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
Looser bracket is harsh enough on players. Nothing is worse than what Select had to go trough, beating rows upon rows of players, not even having time to eat and still being down 2-0 in a best of 7 against nony.
Extended series does not reward the better player because if the player advancing forward lost in the initial rounds he has most likely not played against the winner and thus they end up playing a best of 7 where the looser isnt down 2 games.
So unless extended series will be a reality for everyone, why punish a select few?
|
On November 09 2010 10:59 crms wrote:
I don't like the rule at all. The winner already gains an advantage by WINNING, and being able to continue in the winners bracket where the loser gets dropped down and can be eliminated in ever series afterward.
If they meet up again it should be it's own isolated event.
No. Double elimination means you have to lose twice to be eliminated. Is it fair to win every game and make it to the finals then lose once to someone who already lost a series and be knocked out of the tournament? How is that fair?
Lol at all the unwarranted complaining in this thread about a rule that benefits the better player. I have helpfully linked the wikipedia article on double elimination.
Here is the key snippet:
The championship finals of a double elimination tournament is usually set up to be a possible two games. The rationale is that since the tournament is indeed double elimination, it is unfair to have the Winners' Bracket champion eliminated with its first loss. Therefore, while the Winners' Bracket champion needs to beat the Losers' Bracket champion only once to win the tournament, the Losers' Bracket champion must beat the Winners' Bracket champion twice.
Please stop posting about how the extended series rule sucks. If you think MLG should be single elimination then that is a separate debate. If MLG were single elimination then there would be no losers bracket..
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 09 2010 15:27 Kazang wrote:
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
Wow, thank you. Someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
This if my first post on these forums and I've been a follower of MLG since they started and since I've really enjoyed watching the SC2 tournament (I woke up at 1am and stayed up till 11am just so I could watch it all) I thought I'd check out the TL forums.
It's extremely obvious to me that most of you SC players have been poisoned by tournaments with HORRIBLE brackets and rules. I'll give you guys an example of a horrible bracket since I actually have proper national and international tournament experience.
Me and my brother represented New Zealand for the 2v2 Halo 2 WCG Grand Finals in Singapore 2005. The tournament structure was like this:
Pool play round robbin - Best of 1. There was 4 teams in our pool and I think 4 pools together, some pools had 5 teams. The top 2 teams that won the most games out of each pool would advance.
After this it was single elimination. Team 1 in Pool A would play Team 2 from Pool B, etc.
USA and Canada were both in the same pool, and of course, the Halo scene in North America is quite literally 100X's bigger than anywhere else in the world, so of course USA and Canada advanced and no other team in their pool stood a chance. Even if the 3rd best team was in their pool it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to get 3rd place because of the pool system.
It just so happened that the top 2 teams from our pool would have to face off against USA or Canada. Me and my bro didn't advance, but even if we did, we would have had to play against USA or Canada. Australia and England were both knocked out because of this - it was IMPOSSIBLE for anyone in my pool to get 3rd place as well since USA and Canada came 1st and 2nd, which was obvious from the start.
So now you should see why double elimination is the ONLY fair way to determine the best players of a tournament.
Extended series makes sure the BETTER and MORE CONSISTENT player gets a better tournament placing. If I 2-0 a player earlier in the tournament and then play him later in the loser bracket and he beats me 2-0 I'm out. How is that fair? That doesn't determine the better player since now we're tied.
Even if I won a game and it's 2-1 I'm still out even though I WON MORE TIMES against that certain player (Total score would be 3-2). If you don't understand this simple concept I have no idea what the hell you're doing on a competitive SC forum. Extended series means he has to prove he's actually the better player than me. The better and more consistent player gets to progress through the tournament. If you disagree with this rule than you should probably stop playing games competitively. =\
|
I dont think the rule is fair in the losers bracket but i think it is a fair rule for the final. It is double elimination so in my opinion the winner from the winners bracket should be allowed to lose one best of three so also in the final.
|
On November 09 2010 16:21 Pyroteq wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 09 2010 15:27 Kazang wrote:
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
Wow, thank you. Someone who actually knows what they're talking about. This if my first post on these forums and I've been a follower of MLG since they started and since I've really enjoyed watching the SC2 tournament (I woke up at 1am and stayed up till 11am just so I could watch it all) I thought I'd check out the TL forums. It's extremely obvious to me that most of you SC players have been poisoned by tournaments with HORRIBLE brackets and rules. I'll give you guys an example of a horrible bracket since I actually have proper national and international tournament experience. Me and my brother represented New Zealand for the 2v2 Halo 2 WCG Grand Finals in Singapore 2005. The tournament structure was like this: Pool play round robbin - Best of 1. There was 4 teams in our pool and I think 4 pools together, some pools had 5 teams. The top 2 teams that won the most games out of each pool would advance. After this it was single elimination. Team 1 in Pool A would play Team 2 from Pool B, etc. USA and Canada were both in the same pool, and of course, the Halo scene in North America is quite literally 100X's bigger than anywhere else in the world, so of course USA and Canada advanced and no other team in their pool stood a chance. Even if the 3rd best team was in their pool it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to get 3rd place because of the pool system. It just so happened that the top 2 teams from our pool would have to face off against USA or Canada. Me and my bro didn't advance, but even if we did, we would have had to play against USA or Canada. Australia and England were both knocked out because of this - it was IMPOSSIBLE for anyone in my pool to get 3rd place as well since USA and Canada came 1st and 2nd, which was obvious from the start. So now you should see why double elimination is the ONLY fair way to determine the best players of a tournament. Extended series makes sure the BETTER and MORE CONSISTENT player gets a better tournament placing. If I 2-0 a player earlier in the tournament and then play him later in the loser bracket and he beats me 2-0 I'm out. How is that fair? That doesn't determine the better player since now we're tied. Even if I won a game and it's 2-1 I'm still out even though I WON MORE TIMES against that certain player (Total score would be 3-2). If you don't understand this simple concept I have no idea what the hell you're doing on a competitive SC forum. Extended series means he has to prove he's actually the better player than me. The better and more consistent player gets to progress through the tournament. If you disagree with this rule than you should probably stop playing games competitively. =\
So? The person who beat you earlier moved down the WB therefor has played less matches than you, and has the advantage of not being as worn down. So coming back and winning in the LB/wherever proves that you're the better player, even if the final result is 2-3.
|
On November 09 2010 16:29 Risen wrote:
So? The person who beat you earlier moved down the WB therefor has played less matches than you, and has the advantage of not being as worn down. So coming back and winning in the LB/wherever proves that you're the better player, even if the final result is 2-3.
Except theoretically, the better players are in the WB, so you've had to play tougher opponents before dropping to the LB to face the player you've already beaten.
At this stage, you're trying to find out which player out of those 2 is better because that is the player that deserves to progress through the bracket.
It makes absolutely ZERO sense that I should be eliminated from a tournament by a player I have more wins against. That would be completely and utterly retarded.
MLG didn't introduce the rule just to piss people off and be different. They're the most successful tournament organisers in NA for a reason.
|
On November 09 2010 16:35 Pyroteq wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 16:29 Risen wrote:
So? The person who beat you earlier moved down the WB therefor has played less matches than you, and has the advantage of not being as worn down. So coming back and winning in the LB/wherever proves that you're the better player, even if the final result is 2-3. Except theoretically, the better players are in the WB, so you've had to play tougher opponents before dropping to the LB to face the player you've already beaten. At this stage, you're trying to find out which player out of those 2 is better because that is the player that deserves to progress through the bracket. It makes absolutely ZERO sense that I should be eliminated from a tournament by a player I have more wins against. That would be completely and utterly retarded. MLG didn't introduce the rule just to piss people off and be different. They're the most successful tournament organisers in NA for a reason.
Again, not true. You're assuming that brackets are completely balanced and that people will have faced people of similar skill on their side of the bracket, which is not the case.
So NOT theoretically, the person who advanced in the WB already has the REAL advantage of having played less games. Why give another advantage on top of this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
