|
On March 01 2011 04:44 Antoine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:29 MLG_Lee wrote:On March 01 2011 04:00 Antoine wrote:
Hey Lee,
I actually really like the new format as a spectator, and my only initial concern was the length of the finals. Then I talked to you on twitter and realized that it's not really a good idea to have a longer finals. My only remaining question is still about the finals. This is assuming the 2 players meeting in the finals haven't faced each other previously in the finals, so it's not an automatic extended series.
It seems to me that in order to be consistent with the rest of the tournament, it should be a single bo3 if the person coming from the winner's bracket is ahead at that point, or an extended bo7 if the person coming from the loser's bracket wins 2 of the first 3 games. This prevents any situations like an 0-2 2-1 win ( so 2-3 total) from the winner's bracket person, and makes it so the grand finals has the same rules as the rest of the tournament. Why is this not the case?
Thanks Antoine. In the finals, if they haven't met before it's a bo3 and if the lower bracket wins the first one, then a second bo3 is played which is not currently an extended series. That's exactly my question: why isn't it extended if the lower bracket wins the first bo3, so as to be consistent with the rest of the tournament?
Yeah, I was wondering on this issue, too. If the lower bracket player knocks off the upper bracket player in the finals, shouldn't the second set of games be an extended series in favor of the lower bracket player?
If this isn't the case, then the whole memory core principle would be inconsistently applied.
|
279 Posts
On March 01 2011 04:51 ptbl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:44 Antoine wrote:On March 01 2011 04:29 MLG_Lee wrote:On March 01 2011 04:00 Antoine wrote:
Hey Lee,
I actually really like the new format as a spectator, and my only initial concern was the length of the finals. Then I talked to you on twitter and realized that it's not really a good idea to have a longer finals. My only remaining question is still about the finals. This is assuming the 2 players meeting in the finals haven't faced each other previously in the finals, so it's not an automatic extended series.
It seems to me that in order to be consistent with the rest of the tournament, it should be a single bo3 if the person coming from the winner's bracket is ahead at that point, or an extended bo7 if the person coming from the loser's bracket wins 2 of the first 3 games. This prevents any situations like an 0-2 2-1 win ( so 2-3 total) from the winner's bracket person, and makes it so the grand finals has the same rules as the rest of the tournament. Why is this not the case?
Thanks Antoine. In the finals, if they haven't met before it's a bo3 and if the lower bracket wins the first one, then a second bo3 is played which is not currently an extended series. That's exactly my question: why isn't it extended if the lower bracket wins the first bo3, so as to be consistent with the rest of the tournament? Yeah, I was wondering on this issue, too. If the lower bracket player knocks off the upper bracket player in the finals, shouldn't the second set of games be an extended series in favor of the lower bracket player? If this isn't the case, then the whole memory core principle would be inconsistently applied.
NB: "Thanks Antoine. In the finals, if they haven't met before it's a bo3 and if the lower bracket wins the first one, then a second bo3 is played which is not currently an extended series. "
Some rules/settings still to come this week (like maplist!!!!!). Should have highlighted that in my original response.
edit: hit post too fast and didn't finish my thought.
|
Sweden5554 Posts
Hmm I only have one question about the format. And that's how players from pool play get seeded into the loser's bracket of the championship bracket.
The way it looks from the previews it looks like in any "group" or section of the bracket there's only players from two different pool groups (it looked like this in the OP picture A5 B4 A3 B2) shouldn't they instead get one player in from a different group for every round so: Player A5 then B4 then C3 and then D2. Because as presented wouldn't that increase the risk of players having already played each other playing again, extended series or no, having the competitors play as many different players as possible within the format is the best way to decide who's better than who no?
|
Kind of a specific question that you might not have an answer for yet. In motbob's picture of the MLG format, it shows the 2nd-5th place players from pool play being placed in the same part of the loser's bracket as the other members from their pool. Is this how it is going to be? Or will it be separated out so players can play players from other pools as the go through the bracket?
Not sure if this has been answered, but will it be an extended series if two players played each other in pool play and meet again in the loser's bracket?
|
MLG doesn't care about fariness, they care about entertainment. Based off what I've seen in Halo, the extended series adds a whole new level of excitement to the tournament. It stages a possible nail biting comeback while maintaining who is the better player. If you can't beat someone in an extended series, you don't deserve to advance.
|
MLG_Lee
Can you explain to me how you guys decided to guarantee the Top 16 seeds a Top 24 Finish(Out of 272 Participants) just for showing up? The 1st seed could play the worse games of his life and still place Top 24th and gain points to be seeded in the next tournament. They can't even place last in a bracket that was specifically made for them. It just seems incredibly broken from an integrity point of view.
Tournaments giving advantages through seeding or even skipping the first couple of rounds is no mystery. Guaranteeing a minimum final ranking(from this many participants) as far as I'm aware of has NEVER been done.
|
MLG is trying to produce "star players" through their seeding. For Halo they've created upper echelon teams to give their sponsors something more tangible to sink their money into. Starcraft is a game very similar to poker. The better player/better hand won't always win when the river card hits. This means that in a pool of so many players, we will see new names in the top 16 every tournament. That is great for the competitive aspect, but bad for business. Doyle Brunson might not be the best poker player in the world, but he is a household name that has been used to progress poker. MLG is using this kind of logic and applying it to esports. In the end, it's all about the money. If a player is truly good enough, he will rise to the top despite the odds stacked against him.
|
On March 01 2011 05:50 Karnage7 wrote:
MLG is trying to produce "star players" through their seeding. For Halo they've created upper echelon teams to give their sponsors something more tangible to sink their money into. Starcraft is a game very similar to poker. The better player/better hand won't always win when the river card hits. This means that in a pool of so many players, we will see new names in the top 16 every tournament. That is great for the competitive aspect, but bad for business. Doyle Brunson might not be the best poker player in the world, but he is a household name that has been used to progress poker. MLG is using this kind of logic and applying it to esports. In the end, it's all about the money. If a player is truly good enough, he will rise to the top despite the odds stacked against him.
That's sad to hear. I expected something like this but, later in SC2's life when actual consistency would have been established. Seeing this so soon and seeing money/marketing already affecting the integrity of the competition just as it's "taking off" is a major turn off. Once the hooks are in, they're in for good.
|
On March 01 2011 03:51 MLG_Lee wrote:
- I want to also point out that John Nelson (MLG Anakin, the MLG League Commissioner) specifically designed Pool Play so that there would be more interesting matches for you guys to watch all weekend. As much as I like a good trouncing, watching Jinro, Idra or other top players trounce an Open player isn’t all that interesting to broadcast or spectate.
This is actually the best argument for MLGs group system I have seen so far. We can see high profile matches from day 1 which is indeed a big plus.
Still the system is somewhat too closed, the advantages for the top 16 are too big.
Because of that star players that are not in the top16 are much less likely to attend the event, which makes it less attractive for the viewers (especially the european ones).
Also when the qualification for this tournament (the last 3 MLGs) was done, noone knew that these points would be that important. Therefore it was somewhat random who attended the event and qualified for the top16. Just imagine how much less attractive the top16 would have been if team liquid had not decided to come for that one MLG where many qualified.
Other top players from europe would have come and qualified as well, if they had known what these points would actually mean later on.
Imo at least 3 qualification tournaments with the old system should be done now AFTER having announced the exact format.
On March 01 2011 03:51 MLG_Lee wrote:
- On the subject of the finals—I’ve seen a lot of requests for bo5 or bo7 finals--obviously I don’t want an anticlimactic finals, but asking players who have just pounded their way through 10 or more bo3’s over the course of a weekend to play “just two more maps” at the finals is brutal. That’s no longer an endurance test, that’s just cruel and unusual.
Sorry but I dont see how this makes sense. You dont even know how many games the respective players have played at this point. Could be 20, could be 30. 20+2 or 30+2 is cruel and unusual while 20 or maybe 30 or whatever is perfectly ok? 2 more games should not make that much of a difference, especially when these games decide about something like 10.000 $.
If you truly felt that 2 more games are such a big deal you would not use a format where the winner plays something between 14 and 63 games.
Also a bo5 in a final is anything but unusual lol. What is unusual is having matches with the same amount of games in the final as you have in the first ound. Its actually so unusual that MLG is the only tournament I know of that does it.
|
On March 01 2011 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
Majority of SC fans don't like extended series because they don't understand the issue so they have no chance to make a decision, and being against extended series is their default position.
Nice, everybody that doesnt support the extended series simply has no clue. Even better, everybody who is against it has in truth not REALLY decided against it, as he is just not informed. Nice try at disregarding people whose opinion differs from yours.
Many people so far have explained why they dont like the extended series. Partly with lengthy posts. And most of them have indeed given me the impression that they actually understand the rule.
But I will give it one last try.
In my view the extended series is unfair because it penalizes the player that loses a match twice for that. First he (player A) gets knocked down to the losers bracket. He has to play and win more games in the loser bracket than the player (player B) he lost against. When player B loses a match too and happens to meet A in the loser bracket he will have an advantage over player A, although he has lost the same amount of matches and even won less matches. Player A has received a second penalty for losing, as he is behind in the series.
The funny thing is, if player A does by chance not meet player B again in the loser bracket because B got knocked out by someone else, A will not receive the second penalty for losing that one match. He will play the usual bo3s. He simply has to hope, that B loses and he does not meet him again. That adds a random element to the whole thing that simply should not be there.
Yes, there is a reason that noone else uses an extended series.
But I guess my opinion is also invalid because I am just not informed. 
|
On March 01 2011 04:29 MLG_Lee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:00 Antoine wrote:
Hey Lee,
I actually really like the new format as a spectator, and my only initial concern was the length of the finals. Then I talked to you on twitter and realized that it's not really a good idea to have a longer finals. My only remaining question is still about the finals. This is assuming the 2 players meeting in the finals haven't faced each other previously in the finals, so it's not an automatic extended series.
It seems to me that in order to be consistent with the rest of the tournament, it should be a single bo3 if the person coming from the winner's bracket is ahead at that point, or an extended bo7 if the person coming from the loser's bracket wins 2 of the first 3 games. This prevents any situations like an 0-2 2-1 win ( so 2-3 total) from the winner's bracket person, and makes it so the grand finals has the same rules as the rest of the tournament. Why is this not the case?
Thanks Antoine. In the finals, if they haven't met before it's a bo3 and if the lower bracket wins the first one, then a second bo3 is played which is not currently an extended series.
It's a little weird that extended series can "backfire" in the finals. If you've played a player that you beat 2-1, you get an extended series and they only need to win 3 games against you. If you play a player you haven't played before they have to beat you in 2 Bo3 matches for 4 total games. Seems to me like the winners bracket winner should always get the benefit of having to get beaten in two Bo3's, but it's not a huge deal.
If I were to make a suggestion to make it even better, I would suggest that the player in the winners bracket should never be hurt under extended series rules and the finals should always be Bo7 with the winner's bracket winner starting 2-0 for consistency.
|
On March 01 2011 04:47 ptbl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:39 kNightLite wrote:
I understand that MLG has this core philosophy thing going on with the extended series. However as a spectator it creates anti-climatic matches. Extended series in SC2 gives the previous winner a huge advantage because unlike Halo, even the best player in the world loses 40% of the time to their peers.
There was a study done in SC1 that said something along the lines of 90% of all BO3 are won by the person who wins the first match. Extended series is even worse because it gives one player a 2-0 or 2-1 advantage. Its not very exciting to watch a match when the odds are so heavily stacked against one player because of some philosophical principle.
I think back to MLG Raleigh and that was the most anticlimatic final ever. Select was exhausted by running through the losers bracket all tournament long, and when he finally got to the finals, not only did he face the daunting task of needing to win 2 series to Idra's 1, one of them was a BO7 extended series where I believe he started off with a 0-2 disadvantage. I didnt even bother watching it because the odds were so heavily stacked against him. It doesnt need to be that way just because of some philosophy. Select and Idra happened in D.C.
"There was a study done in SC1 that said something along the lines of 90% of all BO3 are won by the person who wins the first match."
Okay so where be the study that shows that the better player wins most of the matches against the lesser player LOLOLOL.
Yeah, we actually have to think about the stats we put down, not just do it because it suits our argument
|
Not sure whether this warrants a thread of its own or can be dumped in here but the new map pool was announced for MLG.
http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/mlg/mlg-starcraft-2-map-pool/
I'm suprised they have Crossfire, and as an observer I'm little disappointed we'll never be seeing Desert Oasis or Kulas Ravine again in a tournament (despite them being horribly imbalanced, I suppose Day[9]'s and DJWheat's showmatch and IdrA getting blunk was a worthy send off though).
I do think all revisions of Shakuras and Metalopolis should be using the MLG version of:
"Starting spawns on Metalopolis and Shattered Temple have been modified to prevent close ground spawns.
Starting spawns on Shakuras Plateau have been modified to ensure cross-map spawns only."
:Edit: Does the low ground block also prevent low ground wall-ins such as Barracks/Supply depot? But as a whole I believe again having an anti-pylon/bunker block is another beneficial feature that should be made default in order to promote lengthier games.
Yet with all these big maps, map features to lengthen matches and perhaps uncertainty and unfamiliarity with the maps, will the MLG be running for longer than it currently has been since it will be less likely to have as many rush games.
|
I agree on the no close positions on ST and Metal, but I also think preventing horizontal spawn on Shakuras is a bit of an overkill.
Also kinda sad that Scrap Station is still in it and Tal'darim Altar or Taminus RE are not, but I understand it since they prob wanted to keep as many ladder maps (ladder practice) and still take few community (GSL + ICCup) and one fan favorite (Shakuras).
|
I think MLG did a good job in picking the maps for their tournaments.
|
Australia8532 Posts
If Slasher is around maybe he can chuck a link to motbob's thread in the OP .. was very helpful 
|
It's a little weird that extended series can "backfire" in the finals. If you've played a player that you beat 2-1, you get an extended series and they only need to win 3 games against you. If you play a player you haven't played before they have to beat you in 2 Bo3 matches for 4 total games. Seems to me like the winners bracket winner should always get the benefit of having to get beaten in two Bo3's, but it's not a huge deal.
Personally I think extended series is a stupid artificial construct but the argument you gave is bad. They have to win only 3 instead of 4 and you have to win only 2 instead of 4. If you won 1 game each in 2 bo3s you would lose without extended series so that works both ways. How can you possibly say that is a backfire? That said there is a reason that in established sports they do not give a team some advantage for beating another one earlier in a season; each match is an individual event and should be treated as such.
Also concerning the seeding I think they should place more value on the winner. Idra not being a 1-4 seed is pretty stupid considering he won an MLG. The point value should increase more highly than it does between the positions then it does right now, I have nothing personally against the guy and enjoy his streaming but Incontrol has not had any good showings at a MLG event and is still rated in the top 16 just from placing mediocre in most of them just to give an example.
|
On March 01 2011 07:15 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
Majority of SC fans don't like extended series because they don't understand the issue so they have no chance to make a decision, and being against extended series is their default position. Nice, everybody that doesnt support the extended series simply has no clue. Even better, everybody who is against it has in truth not REALLY decided against it, as he is just not informed. Nice try at disregarding people whose opinion differs from yours. Many people so far have explained why they dont like the extended series. Partly with lengthy posts. And most of them have indeed given me the impression that they actually understand the rule. But I will give it one last try. In my view the extended series is unfair because it penalizes the player that loses a match twice for that. First he (player A) gets knocked down to the losers bracket. He has to play and win more games in the loser bracket than the player (player B) he lost against. When player B loses a match too and happens to meet A in the loser bracket he will have an advantage over player A, although he has lost the same amount of matches and even won less matches. Player A has received a second penalty for losing, as he is behind in the series. The funny thing is, if player A does by chance not meet player B again in the loser bracket because B got knocked out by someone else, A will not receive the second penalty for losing that one match. He will play the usual bo3s. He simply has to hope, that B loses and he does not meet him again. That adds a random element to the whole thing that simply should not be there. Yes, there is a reason that noone else uses an extended series. But I guess my opinion is also invalid because I am just not informed.
I know youre German and maybe you misunderstand English but man, majority does not equal everybody.
|
I think it's important to note that there are seven maps. MLG sets up all their games so that a full extended series runs through all of the maps. That way, your win is less dependent on getting maps that favor you and more dependent on being good at every map in the map pool.
|
I doubt everyone in the top 16 will show up. Some people will end up moving up. Didn't Jinro say he has no plans to play in any tournaments outside of Korea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
