• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 19:34
CEST 01:34
KST 08:34
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202561RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The StarCraft 2 GOAT - An in-depth analysis #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings EWC 2025 details: $700k total prize; GSL, DH Dallas confirmed Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BITCOIN RECOVERY EXPERT | LOST RECOVERY MASTERS BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
[G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food!
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 697 users

Statistical Analysis of Extended Series - Page 7

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 5 6 7 All
Jayrod
Profile Joined August 2010
1820 Posts
November 12 2010 18:06 GMT
#121
The extended series makes the finals of the tournament feel alot less epic. To be honest, I dont care whats fair to the players involved because the ONLY reason there is money involved is the viewership. No fans = No esports = no sponsors = no money for tournaments = tournaments would only be based on entrance fees etc.

If they want to make esports bigger, faster, they will understand that you want your finals to feel epic and last more than like 2 games. Its a really big let down to watch people battle it out to get to the end of this big tournament then have one guy playing with a handicap. I guess thats what happens with a double elimination style though... the extended series sucks.
Jerubaal
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States7684 Posts
November 12 2010 18:43 GMT
#122
On November 13 2010 02:32 Risen wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 13 2010 02:20 cHaNg-sTa wrote:
idra and incontrol were arguing against extended series, but they actually didn't realize that their arguments contradicted each other while they verbally agreed with each other.

idra explained how because if player A screwed up against player B, and player B screws up against player C, why should player A be penalized when playing player B in the losers' bracket? But then incontrol said that each of these Bo3's are isolated events. Any previous result should not affect the current Bo3. When you look at these two arguments, they clearly contradict each other as idra uses events elsewhere in the tournament as an argument, while incontrol states that each Bo3 is isolated.

Sorry, I just wanted to throw that out there lol


You're an idiot. These statements don't contradict each other at all...


They contradict each other because idrA and INControl said they wanted each series to be treated as an isolated event and then brought in the overall tournament performance of the players as an argument. I'm not saying it kills their argument completely, but it's odd that they switched paradigms.

Another seeming contradiction is that they all agreed that the tournament doesn't do a particularly good job of ranking the players and then decided that it was better to let the system do the ranking. You can gauge relative skill between two players better than you can 128, yet the argument against extended series seems to play to the deficiencies of the system.
I'm not stupid, a marauder just shot my brain.
cHaNg-sTa
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
United States1058 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-11-12 18:48:26
November 12 2010 18:46 GMT
#123
On November 13 2010 02:32 Risen wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 13 2010 02:20 cHaNg-sTa wrote:
idra and incontrol were arguing against extended series, but they actually didn't realize that their arguments contradicted each other while they verbally agreed with each other.

idra explained how because if player A screwed up against player B, and player B screws up against player C, why should player A be penalized when playing player B in the losers' bracket? But then incontrol said that each of these Bo3's are isolated events. Any previous result should not affect the current Bo3. When you look at these two arguments, they clearly contradict each other as idra uses events elsewhere in the tournament as an argument, while incontrol states that each Bo3 is isolated.

Sorry, I just wanted to throw that out there lol


You're an idiot. These statements don't contradict each other at all...


Uh, how so? Idra said that why should one player be penalized over the other because they both lost once in the losers bracket. But then incontrol states that each of the Bo3 are isolated events and should be treated as a single entity. Nothing that happened previously in the tournament should have any effect on the current Bo3. Yet, idra is pulling the example that player B screwed up against someone else in the tournament, so he shouldn't have an extended series with player A because of an event outside of the "isolated Bo3".

So basically incontrol said that the isolated Bo3 is an entirely new event that has absolutely no reflection on any of the previous results in the tournament. But idra is declaring that one shouldn't be penalized over the other because of a previous result in the tournament outside of the matchup between player A and B. Sounds like a contradiction to me.
Jaedong <3 HOOK'EM HORNS!
Fries
Profile Joined August 2010
United States124 Posts
November 12 2010 18:56 GMT
#124
Was just re-listening to all the arguments made in the State of the Game podcast and thought of something that I think is actually a pretty good compromise.

Not sure if this idea has yet been brought up, but what do people think of this?

Instead of an extended series a new series is played but a best of 7(or 5) instead of a new best of 3.

The logic being that Tyler is correct in saying the purpose of double elimination really is to give a better player who slips a chance to get a higher place than he otherwise would have had. I don't really see how you can dispute this. So if two players who already have to face each other it's probably best (read: most fair) to be as accurate as possible in determining who moves on.

It's true that you could still have a case where one person could overall be 4-3 or 5-4 and be the "loser" but would it at least feel better to people to go home after losing a fresh best of 5 or 7?
Ketara
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States15065 Posts
November 12 2010 19:11 GMT
#125
On November 13 2010 02:06 nzb wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 13 2010 01:58 Ketara wrote:
That would not solve the problem of having 32 players with the same score in round 2.

I've used swiss pairing to organize tournaments for different games before, and I do not see how you'd be able to sort that.

Edit: I gotta go but we should continue this discussion!


I imagine you would just use the initial seeds to sort between people with equivalent scores, and having 3x the number of rounds would quickly break people into categories.

I know that Google used this exact format (swiss->single elim) for their internal tournament at the end of the beta.


The problem here is that sorting ties when using swiss pairing becomes astronomically more difficult the more ties you have.

Lets say we have 64 players, and we're using their sc2ranks scores to sort ties. The first round is sorted that way, which is fine. The nature of the system is such that the first round has to be somewhat arbitrary.

After the first round, you have 32 players with 1 win and 32 players with 0 wins. The 32 with 1 win haven't played each other yet, so their sc2ranks stats can be used to sort them, and the same for those with 0 points.

However, the problem then occurs in round 3, where we have 16 people with 2 points who haven't played each other, 16 with 0 points who haven't played each other, but 32 with 1 point who may have played the person with the closest rank in the first round. In fact, if the people with the higher ranks are consistently beating the people with the lower ranks, it is very likely that you will have a large portion of these 32 who's closest ranked opponent is the person they played in the first round.

Since by the rules of the system people cannot play each other twice (you could change that rule I suppose!) you are then looking for the second closest ranked person for every single one of your problem matchups. It doesn't take a math whiz to see that at this point, every matchup that is altered in turn alters every other matchup, and it becomes very ungainly to organize it if you have a large number of problem matchups. The pairing is supposed to be done by the system and the organizer is supposed to be unable to influence it, but at this point you have to be influencing it just in order to settle the pairings.

Doing accelerated pairings and having multiple games in a series, allowing for people to have a variance in their number of points per round, would mitigate this issue to a degree, but without seeing some math I'm not convinced that it would prevent it.


Further, the concept of using someones ranked ladder stats to sort teams is going to be full of problems, since not everybody ladders, the best players in tournaments are often not the best players on ladder, and Blizzard has stated that sc2ranks is not 100% accurate at sorting player skill level because we don't have the full equation on how the hidden MMR rating works.

It would probably be fine for the first round, because that has to be somewhat arbitrary, but by using it repeatedly round after round you're undermining the accuracy of your sorting method.

Obviously if you could get a tournament system going and seed players by earlier tournament scores this would stop being an issue, but there would have to be an initial tournament at some point, and it would be nice to create a system that could be used for one-off tournaments and not require them to be part of some sort of league.
http://www.liquidlegends.net/forum/lol-general/502075-patch-61-league-of-legends-general-discussion?page=25#498
f0rk
Profile Joined March 2010
England172 Posts
November 12 2010 19:13 GMT
#126
On November 13 2010 03:06 Jayrod wrote:
The extended series makes the finals of the tournament feel alot less epic. To be honest, I dont care whats fair to the players involved because the ONLY reason there is money involved is the viewership. No fans = No esports = no sponsors = no money for tournaments = tournaments would only be based on entrance fees etc.

If they want to make esports bigger, faster, they will understand that you want your finals to feel epic and last more than like 2 games. Its a really big let down to watch people battle it out to get to the end of this big tournament then have one guy playing with a handicap. I guess thats what happens with a double elimination style though... the extended series sucks.


The finals would of been 2 games if it was standard double elimination. The anti climatic finals is more down to using bo3 the whole way through, when switching to bo5 near the end would be more exciting.
Cyber_Cheese
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Australia3615 Posts
November 12 2010 19:20 GMT
#127
early on in the article when explaining the series types a typo

"This rule is intended to avoid some paradoxical outcomes, as well as
statistically increase the likelihood that the 'better player'
continues in the tournament. It is possible in standard double
elimination for Alice to defeat Bob 2-1 in the winners', and Bob to
defeat Alice in the losers' 2-0. The "overall series" between Alice
and Bob is 3-2 in Alice's favor, but Bob continues and Alice does
not."

those should be 2-0, 2-1 and 3-2 in order to make sense
The moment you lose confidence in yourself, is the moment the world loses it's confidence in you.
nzb
Profile Joined September 2010
United States41 Posts
November 12 2010 20:19 GMT
#128
On November 13 2010 04:20 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
early on in the article when explaining the series types a typo

"This rule is intended to avoid some paradoxical outcomes, as well as
statistically increase the likelihood that the 'better player'
continues in the tournament. It is possible in standard double
elimination for Alice to defeat Bob 2-1 in the winners', and Bob to
defeat Alice in the losers' 2-0. The "overall series" between Alice
and Bob is 3-2 in Alice's favor, but Bob continues and Alice does
not."

those should be 2-0, 2-1 and 3-2 in order to make sense


You are correct, sir.
nzb
Profile Joined September 2010
United States41 Posts
November 12 2010 20:38 GMT
#129
On November 13 2010 04:11 Ketara wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 13 2010 02:06 nzb wrote:
On November 13 2010 01:58 Ketara wrote:
That would not solve the problem of having 32 players with the same score in round 2.

I've used swiss pairing to organize tournaments for different games before, and I do not see how you'd be able to sort that.

Edit: I gotta go but we should continue this discussion!


I imagine you would just use the initial seeds to sort between people with equivalent scores, and having 3x the number of rounds would quickly break people into categories.

I know that Google used this exact format (swiss->single elim) for their internal tournament at the end of the beta.


The problem here is that sorting ties when using swiss pairing becomes astronomically more difficult the more ties you have.

Lets say we have 64 players, and we're using their sc2ranks scores to sort ties. The first round is sorted that way, which is fine. The nature of the system is such that the first round has to be somewhat arbitrary.

After the first round, you have 32 players with 1 win and 32 players with 0 wins. The 32 with 1 win haven't played each other yet, so their sc2ranks stats can be used to sort them, and the same for those with 0 points.

However, the problem then occurs in round 3, where we have 16 people with 2 points who haven't played each other, 16 with 0 points who haven't played each other, but 32 with 1 point who may have played the person with the closest rank in the first round. In fact, if the people with the higher ranks are consistently beating the people with the lower ranks, it is very likely that you will have a large portion of these 32 who's closest ranked opponent is the person they played in the first round.

Since by the rules of the system people cannot play each other twice (you could change that rule I suppose!) you are then looking for the second closest ranked person for every single one of your problem matchups. It doesn't take a math whiz to see that at this point, every matchup that is altered in turn alters every other matchup, and it becomes very ungainly to organize it if you have a large number of problem matchups. The pairing is supposed to be done by the system and the organizer is supposed to be unable to influence it, but at this point you have to be influencing it just in order to settle the pairings.

Doing accelerated pairings and having multiple games in a series, allowing for people to have a variance in their number of points per round, would mitigate this issue to a degree, but without seeing some math I'm not convinced that it would prevent it.


I haven't worked this all out myself, so bear with me... As the number of rounds proceeds, you end up with this spread:

Round | # of wins (starting from 0, increasing)
1 | 64
2 | 32 32
3 | 16 32 16
4 | 8 24 24 8
5 | 4 16 24 16 4
6 | 2 10 20 20 10 2
7 | 1 6 15 20 15 6 1

I think you could adopt the algorithm of, starting from the top ranked player ,choose the next best play who he hasn't played, and continue down from the top selecting players until you have everyone paired.

Dammit, now you have me interesting writing this all up and simulating it again.


Further, the concept of using someones ranked ladder stats to sort teams is going to be full of problems, since not everybody ladders, the best players in tournaments are often not the best players on ladder, and Blizzard has stated that sc2ranks is not 100% accurate at sorting player skill level because we don't have the full equation on how the hidden MMR rating works.

It would probably be fine for the first round, because that has to be somewhat arbitrary, but by using it repeatedly round after round you're undermining the accuracy of your sorting method.

Obviously if you could get a tournament system going and seed players by earlier tournament scores this would stop being an issue, but there would have to be an initial tournament at some point, and it would be nice to create a system that could be used for one-off tournaments and not require them to be part of some sort of league.


I don't think this is much of an issue, because you can use season ranks (presuming that you are a league and have multiple tournaments in a season). And presumably these would be reasonably accurate.
Ketara
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States15065 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-11-12 21:11:54
November 12 2010 21:05 GMT
#130
For our round 3 where the 32 players come up, lets see how sorting the next best player works. I'm going to use an 8 person example because that way I don't have to type as much.

We have 16 players, all with 1 point in the tournament so far:

Player A: 225 MMR, played E in round 1
Player B: 230 MMR, played H in round 1
Player C: 250 MMR, played a player who now has 2 points in round 1
Player D: 200 MMR, played F in round 1
Player E: 220 MMR, played A in round 1
Player F: 180 MMR, played D in round 1
Player G: 240 MMR, played a player who now has 2 points in round 1
Player H: 235 MMR, played B in round 1

Lets sort them from the top down.

C (250 MMR) plays G (240), which is straightforward.
H (235) should play B (230) but can't, so he goes to the next player down, A (225)
B (230) plays the #4 player, E (220)
This leaves D (200) and F (180), but they cannot play each other.

So now we have to sort it from the bottom up instead.

When you sort it that way it works out, but results in C and G not playing each other which was your only obvious matchup, and gives you F at 180 MMR playing E at 220 MMR, which is not entirely fair, because at that skill differential it is likely a free point for player E that was caused by ties in the system.

And that is only with 8 people. I dunno. It has the potential to work, it just seems difficult to me. I am betting that games that only count wins as either a win (1) or a loss (0) generally do not have 64 players in their swiss tournaments. The game that we use it for, Field of Glory, has a 25 point scoring system and a very reliable ELO ranking for players, and only one league for every tournament. Plus, our tournaments rarely break 20-25 people.
http://www.liquidlegends.net/forum/lol-general/502075-patch-61-league-of-legends-general-discussion?page=25#498
nzb
Profile Joined September 2010
United States41 Posts
November 12 2010 22:41 GMT
#131
On November 13 2010 06:05 Ketara wrote:
For our round 3 where the 32 players come up, lets see how sorting the next best player works. I'm going to use an 8 person example because that way I don't have to type as much.

We have 16 players, all with 1 point in the tournament so far:

Player A: 225 MMR, played E in round 1
Player B: 230 MMR, played H in round 1
Player C: 250 MMR, played a player who now has 2 points in round 1
Player D: 200 MMR, played F in round 1
Player E: 220 MMR, played A in round 1
Player F: 180 MMR, played D in round 1
Player G: 240 MMR, played a player who now has 2 points in round 1
Player H: 235 MMR, played B in round 1

Lets sort them from the top down.

C (250 MMR) plays G (240), which is straightforward.
H (235) should play B (230) but can't, so he goes to the next player down, A (225)
B (230) plays the #4 player, E (220)
This leaves D (200) and F (180), but they cannot play each other.

So now we have to sort it from the bottom up instead.

When you sort it that way it works out, but results in C and G not playing each other which was your only obvious matchup, and gives you F at 180 MMR playing E at 220 MMR, which is not entirely fair, because at that skill differential it is likely a free point for player E that was caused by ties in the system.

And that is only with 8 people. I dunno. It has the potential to work, it just seems difficult to me. I am betting that games that only count wins as either a win (1) or a loss (0) generally do not have 64 players in their swiss tournaments. The game that we use it for, Field of Glory, has a 25 point scoring system and a very reliable ELO ranking for players, and only one league for every tournament. Plus, our tournaments rarely break 20-25 people.


Well, I went ahead and implemented the swiss style I was talking about and I'm running a million iterations right now. Basically, if there isn't a "valid match", then you drop the requirement that players can't play each other, and there is a re-match. This doesn't happen very often, though -- about 2% of the time. Also, this only impacts people in the bottom of the ranking (because the best get priority), so its probably not too much of a concern.

The bad news is that initial results from running 50k iterations didn't look very good. I think that after running the tournament with a lot of rounds, you end up having the top players play bad players in the final rounds because they have already played all the other good players ... I'll have to follow up on this to see exactly whats going on.
Ketara
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States15065 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-11-12 22:54:30
November 12 2010 22:49 GMT
#132
Swiss ranking has a system for how many rounds you are supposed to have based on how many people have entered the tournament in order to achieve the best sorting, which as I understand it is because of that issue.

I think this is better than the wikipedia article: http://vtchess.info/Results/Swiss_Pairing_System.htm

"The rule of thumb is that it can handle 2n players, where n is the number of rounds. Therefore, 8 players needs 3 rounds, 16 players needs 4 rounds, 32 players needs 5 rounds, and so forth. (These numbers are approximations - due to draws and other variables, sometimes it works with more players than expected.)"

Using accelerated pairings allows you to have a tournament with 1 fewer rounds than what is necessary, but requires you to have a skill approximation of your players, and requires that you sort your initial round by that approximation.


Another note about swiss ranking is that there are actual literal ways to game the system. If you have access to the rankings and know everybodies score and who played whom and can do some quick math, you can at times figure out that if you lose a game on purpose, your next two opponents will be ones that you know cannot defeat you.

We call it "submarine-ing" and it's not a very honorable thing to do in our competitions but people do do it.

It is also sometimes possible to cheat the system by arranging a draw on purpose, but I imagine in Starcraft that would not be possible since draws are so difficult to create.
http://www.liquidlegends.net/forum/lol-general/502075-patch-61-league-of-legends-general-discussion?page=25#498
nzb
Profile Joined September 2010
United States41 Posts
November 12 2010 22:59 GMT
#133
On November 13 2010 07:49 Ketara wrote:
Swiss ranking has a system for how many rounds you are supposed to have based on how many people have entered the tournament in order to achieve the best sorting, which as I understand it is because of that issue.

I think this is better than the wikipedia article: http://vtchess.info/Results/Swiss_Pairing_System.htm

"The rule of thumb is that it can handle 2n players, where n is the number of rounds. Therefore, 8 players needs 3 rounds, 16 players needs 4 rounds, 32 players needs 5 rounds, and so forth. (These numbers are approximations - due to draws and other variables, sometimes it works with more players than expected.)"

Using accelerated pairings allows you to have a tournament with 1 fewer rounds than what is necessary, but requires you to have a skill approximation of your players, and requires that you sort your initial round by that approximation.


Another note about swiss ranking is that there are actual literal ways to game the system. If you have access to the rankings and know everybodies score and who played whom and can do some quick math, you can at times figure out that if you lose a game on purpose, your next two opponents will be ones that you know cannot defeat you.

We call it "submarine-ing" and it's not a very honorable thing to do in our competitions but people do do it.

It is also sometimes possible to cheat the system by arranging a draw on purpose, but I imagine in Starcraft that would not be possible since draws are so difficult to create.


Yeah, after hearing from all these people that have actually played in tournaments that use swiss style, I'm not sure it is actually preferable to simple double elimination. I still think it is a cool idea though. I'll try running my simulation again using normal best of three once it finishes, instead of increasing the # of games.

It seems to me like tournaments like the GSL, who have literally thousands of people enter the qualifier, need a better system than single elimination in order to determine who qualifies. Since they take the top 64 anyway, it seems like swiss might be useful there ... But it really isn't acceptable that Tester, OGSTop, July, even Jinro can't qualify because they hit good players in the randomly-seeded qualifiers.
Ketara
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States15065 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-11-12 23:11:00
November 12 2010 23:10 GMT
#134
I think Swiss ranking is an excellent system if you A - Have a small number of people competing, B - Have a scoring system that makes identical scores rare, and C - Have to finish the tournament in a timely fashion such that round robin is impossible.

I too am shocked at the way GSL does its qualifiers, but I am under the impression that they are only doing these 3 with this system in order to create seeds, and the system they use next year is going to be markedly different and (presumably) better. Any time you're creating a league the first event is bumpy.

I do think that for a team vs. team competition swiss pairing would work great though. It'd be fun to know how the SC BW team leagues work. I'm sure there's a Liquipedia article on it and I just don't care enough to read it.

If you've got say 8 teams with 4 players each. The pairings for the first round could be random, with 4 Liquids playing 4 EG say, and then count the number of wins as the score, with however many rounds. This would necessitate that the team do well as a whole in order to win the tournament, because the teams best players win is only worth as many points as their worst players win.

Round Robin would probably work well for a team league too however since the number of participating teams would not be huge, and it would likely be more accurate.
http://www.liquidlegends.net/forum/lol-general/502075-patch-61-league-of-legends-general-discussion?page=25#498
nzb
Profile Joined September 2010
United States41 Posts
November 13 2010 00:20 GMT
#135
So curious results for the swiss implementation -- with 64 players it does:

Winner - 0.67
Depth - 33.38
2^Depth - 43.73

To put in perspective, both the depth metrics are slightly worse than the single-elimination tournament format (which does 24.13/40.13), but the winner metric is better than double with extended series and almost as good as round robin (which get .79 and .55, respectively). So thats certainly unexpected -- so far the trends in every metric had been pretty consistent.

I bet its doing poorly because there are too many games, I'll try running it again.
Prev 1 5 6 7 All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 10h 26m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nathanias 186
StarCraft: Brood War
Larva 378
Dota 2
monkeys_forever588
capcasts177
League of Legends
Grubby4158
Counter-Strike
Fnx 2574
flusha471
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King165
AZ_Axe118
Liquid`Ken33
Other Games
tarik_tv22986
summit1g11397
gofns9011
C9.Mang0227
ViBE153
PPMD26
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick682
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 19 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 77
• RyuSc2 48
• musti20045 42
• davetesta27
• Kozan
• Migwel
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 32
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota23194
League of Legends
• Doublelift4777
• TFBlade494
Other Games
• imaqtpie1033
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
10h 26m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
14h 26m
CSO Cup
16h 26m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
18h 26m
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 9h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 14h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 18h
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.