|
On March 01 2011 12:32 Corrik wrote:
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?
He said he wont go to any tournament that interferes with GSL. Hopefully they'll help him out with scheduling so he can play MLG as often as possible.
|
On March 01 2011 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 18:30 Huxley wrote:On February 28 2011 09:04 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Where's the flaw? You've made part 1 of your argument and haven't bothered to make part 2. The folks who have made part 2 of the argument end up at an impasse with the folks in favor of extended series. Either you think the bracket should be read as a whole or you think the slate should be wiped clean every round. A flaw of not having extended series is when Green beats Blue 2-0, and then they meet in the losers bracket and Blue beats Green 2-1, and now Green has been eliminated by someone he's 3-2 against in this competition. If they would've just played a bo5 in the first place, he would've won 3-0 or 3-1. But since they're playing two bo3's, and Blue is lucky enough to win 2/3 of games 3-5, Blue gets to advance. Since you like percentages, Blue has just eliminated Green by winning only 40% of his games against him! So double elim with extended series is saying "either you have to lose twice in bo3's, which can be kinda luck based so that's why we give you a 2nd chance, or you have to lose once in a bo5, which ought to determine fairly well that you're worse than someone else here". But there are several other perspectives to consider as well... it's all been said before on TL. In your example Blue was not the sole factor in the eliminatation of Green. It was the combined efforts of Blue and whoever Green lost to in the winners bracket. Thats why its flawed to look at it just as one big game between 2 players. I think of it like this: Winning 2x Bo3 is winning 4 games out of 6 chances. Winning one Bo7 is winning 4 games out of 7 chances. It give an extra chance for both players to mess up, which pairs of players in the same bracket (who arent subject to an extended series) do not get. You've got to explain why it's a flaw. You're not making any arguments here. You're just posting how the rules play out and saying "it shouldn't be like that". You haven't gotten any farther than saying "I'm against extended series" and then running a bunch of scenarios where extended series are involved and saying "yep that shit is flawed". For example: I think playing bo5's in a bracket is flawed. A guy can go 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 and play against a guy who has gone 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 and then lose 2-3, and this guy who wins 85% of his games does not advance while the guy who wins 60% of his games does get to advance. We should fix this by having bo1's, not bo5's, so that the guy with the higher win percentage always advances. We had a flaw and now we don't so obviously running bo1's in a bracket is better than bo5's. There are flaws in every system. Patching up a flaw doesn't necessarily improve the system. That's why MLG always talks about their philosophy of running leagues, their belief that the tournament should have a memory, etc. That's where the argument is at. You posting your scenarios are way behind. Like I said, it's an impasse. 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.
HusbandToss, you should be a lawyer.
|
8751 Posts
On March 01 2011 15:25 CatZ.root wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On February 28 2011 18:30 Huxley wrote:On February 28 2011 09:04 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Where's the flaw? You've made part 1 of your argument and haven't bothered to make part 2. The folks who have made part 2 of the argument end up at an impasse with the folks in favor of extended series. Either you think the bracket should be read as a whole or you think the slate should be wiped clean every round. A flaw of not having extended series is when Green beats Blue 2-0, and then they meet in the losers bracket and Blue beats Green 2-1, and now Green has been eliminated by someone he's 3-2 against in this competition. If they would've just played a bo5 in the first place, he would've won 3-0 or 3-1. But since they're playing two bo3's, and Blue is lucky enough to win 2/3 of games 3-5, Blue gets to advance. Since you like percentages, Blue has just eliminated Green by winning only 40% of his games against him! So double elim with extended series is saying "either you have to lose twice in bo3's, which can be kinda luck based so that's why we give you a 2nd chance, or you have to lose once in a bo5, which ought to determine fairly well that you're worse than someone else here". But there are several other perspectives to consider as well... it's all been said before on TL. In your example Blue was not the sole factor in the eliminatation of Green. It was the combined efforts of Blue and whoever Green lost to in the winners bracket. Thats why its flawed to look at it just as one big game between 2 players. I think of it like this: Winning 2x Bo3 is winning 4 games out of 6 chances. Winning one Bo7 is winning 4 games out of 7 chances. It give an extra chance for both players to mess up, which pairs of players in the same bracket (who arent subject to an extended series) do not get. You've got to explain why it's a flaw. You're not making any arguments here. You're just posting how the rules play out and saying "it shouldn't be like that". You haven't gotten any farther than saying "I'm against extended series" and then running a bunch of scenarios where extended series are involved and saying "yep that shit is flawed". For example: I think playing bo5's in a bracket is flawed. A guy can go 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 and play against a guy who has gone 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 and then lose 2-3, and this guy who wins 85% of his games does not advance while the guy who wins 60% of his games does get to advance. We should fix this by having bo1's, not bo5's, so that the guy with the higher win percentage always advances. We had a flaw and now we don't so obviously running bo1's in a bracket is better than bo5's. There are flaws in every system. Patching up a flaw doesn't necessarily improve the system. That's why MLG always talks about their philosophy of running leagues, their belief that the tournament should have a memory, etc. That's where the argument is at. You posting your scenarios are way behind. Like I said, it's an impasse. 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. HusbandToss, you should be a lawyer.
lol i was gonna be until i decided to be a progamer!
<3
|
On March 01 2011 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 18:30 Huxley wrote:On February 28 2011 09:04 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Where's the flaw? You've made part 1 of your argument and haven't bothered to make part 2. The folks who have made part 2 of the argument end up at an impasse with the folks in favor of extended series. Either you think the bracket should be read as a whole or you think the slate should be wiped clean every round. A flaw of not having extended series is when Green beats Blue 2-0, and then they meet in the losers bracket and Blue beats Green 2-1, and now Green has been eliminated by someone he's 3-2 against in this competition. If they would've just played a bo5 in the first place, he would've won 3-0 or 3-1. But since they're playing two bo3's, and Blue is lucky enough to win 2/3 of games 3-5, Blue gets to advance. Since you like percentages, Blue has just eliminated Green by winning only 40% of his games against him! So double elim with extended series is saying "either you have to lose twice in bo3's, which can be kinda luck based so that's why we give you a 2nd chance, or you have to lose once in a bo5, which ought to determine fairly well that you're worse than someone else here". But there are several other perspectives to consider as well... it's all been said before on TL. In your example Blue was not the sole factor in the eliminatation of Green. It was the combined efforts of Blue and whoever Green lost to in the winners bracket. Thats why its flawed to look at it just as one big game between 2 players. I think of it like this: Winning 2x Bo3 is winning 4 games out of 6 chances. Winning one Bo7 is winning 4 games out of 7 chances. It give an extra chance for both players to mess up, which pairs of players in the same bracket (who arent subject to an extended series) do not get. You've got to explain why it's a flaw. You're not making any arguments here. You're just posting how the rules play out and saying "it shouldn't be like that". You haven't gotten any farther than saying "I'm against extended series" and then running a bunch of scenarios where extended series are involved and saying "yep that shit is flawed"..
I did in the first line of the doc linked in my original post:
"Players subjected to the extended series rule always have different probabilities to advance compared to players of equal standing that were not subject to it."
By equal standings i mean (using the example in the doc) red compared with blue or green compared to purple. Those players are performing equally to one another yet because the extended series rule only applies to one of them (due to happenstance) you end up with one of them having a greater chance to advance based on probability (ie remove skill from the equation).
For example: I think playing bo5's in a bracket is flawed. A guy can go 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 and play against a guy who has gone 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 and then lose 2-3, and this guy who wins 85% of his games does not advance while the guy who wins 60% of his games does get to advance. We should fix this by having bo1's, not bo5's, so that the guy with the higher win percentage always advances. We had a flaw and now we don't so obviously running bo1's in a bracket is better than bo5's.
In this example, if you wanted to design a system based on cumulative win percentage then you would allow the loser of the 3-0 to play out the 4th and 5th games. Then the "total games played" would be equal for everyone and the percentages would then be a fair comparison. Anyway, Im using percentages to show how the probabilities of advancing get skewed, not as arbitrary scoring system.
There are flaws in every system. Patching up a flaw doesn't necessarily improve the system.
This actually sounds like an arguement you could use against extended series. It attempts to correct a perceived problem with the double elimination format but ends up creating another set of problems in its place.
|
Extended series is a problem how? Bo3 is 3 games total. Extended it's bo7. You still have to lose 4 games. Instead of 6 games we get a possible 7. Winner of the first series gets an advantage b/c he bossed that round. In Halo a series went from bo5 to bo11 to ensure equal losses.
Epic comeback for the person down a game or 2 is achieveable. If you lose you aren't worthy of advancing. What's the problem?
|
Can't wait for it! Gonna be awesome!
|
MLG wants to make games as exciting for the general public and casual gamers as possible. Extended series give people the chance to come from behind and win in spectacular fashion. While this probably wont happen frequently, it will happen, and when it does it will be much more exciting. People love to root for the underdog even if they are not normally a fan. As people who want to advance e-sports as much as possible, we should all be in support of the extended series.
|
On March 01 2011 23:05 Karnage7 wrote:
Extended series is a problem how? Bo3 is 3 games total. Extended it's bo7. You still have to lose 4 games. Instead of 6 games we get a possible 7.
Yes, the games lost ends up being the same but the player who is playing from behind has to win more games than someone with an identical score but who was lucky enough to avoid their former opponent. In this example Blue has to win twice as many games as Red, despite performing equally to Red up until that point.
Winner of the first series gets an advantage b/c he bossed that round. In Halo a series went from bo5 to bo11 to ensure equal losses. Epic comeback for the person down a game or 2 is achieveable. If you lose you aren't worthy of advancing. What's the problem?
But someone who isn't as lucky to meet the person they beat earlier doesn't get any advantage for "bossing" the first round. Its the lack of consistency in how the rule is applied that is the problem, not the rule itself.
|
On March 01 2011 07:36 mprs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:47 ptbl wrote: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
Try comparing GSL1 to GSL5. Or even MLG DC to MLG Dallas. Then come back here and try to make your argument.
|
Hey thanks for this thread, it made things very clear. cheers!!
|
I see it as, it's a weekend tournament, you're probably going to meet the player that beat in the loser's bracket the same day that they beat you, less than a day's time is not enough to be elgible for a clean-slate, the losing player cannot go home and change absolutely everything about their play and come back with new and refined build orders, so we just have to assume that the player who won the first series was not a fluke!
|
On March 01 2011 03:51 MLG_Lee wrote:
- Regarding extended series (I don't think I've ever posted about it, so here goes), this represents a core philosophy of MLG’s league. A tournament should have a memory of your entire performance in that tournament, not just how you’re doing in that round/match.
I realise that this may count as bleating on about something that isn't really the main focus of this thread, and which many see as an annoying/contentious issue, but I want to air my views on the current extended series rule directly to you while we have you in this thread. It's also longer than I intended, but I wanted to make sure I was properly explaining my thoughts.
I want to start by saying that I definitely see merit in the tournament being structured so that you don't get knocked out by somebody who you have a winning record against. After reading what Liquid'Tyler had to say on the subject a couple of months ago in another thread, I can understand why it's a bad thing to have the order of your wins against somebody dictate who is eliminated. But what I want to show is that the extended series rule does not currently 'have a memory of your entire performance in that tournament'. Instead, it has a very selective memory of your performance in one specific previous round in that tournament, and that this selective memory can lead to outcomes that run contrary to the goal as you stated it.
Take this example
idrA* has won all his matches 2-0 up to the semi final of the winners' bracket. He then gets eliminated 1-2. iNcontroL, on the other hand, has won all his matches 2-1 up to the semi final of the winners' bracket, including a match against Machine (because y'know, it's MLG :p). He then gets eliminated 0-2.
I think everybody can look at this and say that idrA has performed better than iNcontroL up to that stage of the tournament - or if you're taking only winrate, he has at least performed equally well.
iNcontroL is then drawn against Machine, but idrA plays somebody new. iNcontroL has to lose 3 games to be eliminated, wheras idrA only has to lose 2. iNcontroL has an easier time qualifying for the next round, compared to idrA. iNcontroL is in an advantageous position compared to idrA. The extended series rule has 'remembered' his previous performance against Machine, but has 'forgotten' any other performances.
My criticism of the extended series rule is that it does not actually reward players equally for performing equally well throughout the entire tournament. Instead, a player can have an advantage over somebody who has arguably performed better during the tournament, simply due to the dumb luck of the draw.
I think a better solution would be to turn any game where somebody got further in the winners' bracket into a BO5, and give the player who got further a 1-0 headstart (so he needs to lose 3 games, but only win 2. That way, earlier performance in the tournament is genuinely being remembered, that performance is being applied equally to every player, and also no player can be eliminated by somebody who you have a winning record against.
The worst that could happen would be you are eliminated by somebody who you have drawn 3-3 against in actual games played (you win 2-0 in the winners' bracket, get a 1-0 headstart in the losers' bracket BO5, and you are then beaten 2-3), but I think that will be far outweighed by the number of times that your overall performance gives you an advantage you wouldn't otherwise have under the current rules.
As far as fairness goes, I think it would be better than the current extended series rule, but the main downside I can see is that it could be difficult to fit into the existing schedule. And even if it fits, it could make the endurance aspect of the game even more difficult, depending on how many 'extended' BO5s you have compared to the current BO3/BO7 mix.
* Is it right to capitalise player names like this when they start a new sentence?
|
279 Posts
@The Touch - I think the difference I would have with your perspective is that the tournament (which, to reinforce the point, is double elim) already accounts for your performance relative to other players. You've made it another round. Extended series addresses the defect that LiquidTyler illustrated so much better than I did my first time out on the topic--that your performance vs another player during the entire tournament should determine who advances (and thus the memory part).
In a standard double elim bracket, it's like a full reset when two players meet again in losers (or grand finals). That is not, in MLG (and my opinion) fair to the winner. Yes, it's harder on the player who lost the first time they met, but the point is, it should be.
|
On March 04 2011 05:51 MLG_Lee wrote:
In a standard double elim bracket, it's like a full reset when two players meet again in losers (or grand finals). That is not, in MLG (and my opinion) fair to the winner. Yes, it's harder on the player who lost the first time they met, but the point is, it should be.
And I'm not arguing against that. It's easy to see why a tournament would want to eliminate the possibility of players being eliminated by somebody who they have a winning record against. I completely agree that it's a worthy goal.
What I'm arguing is that if two players (Player A and Player B) have performed equally well in the tournament, I think they should face the same risk of being eliminated in future rounds (other than that associated with the varying quality of their opponents). Extended series, as currently implemented, gives rise to situations where Player A has a lower risk of being eliminated than Player B does, just because the luck of the draw pits Player A against somebody he has already beaten, and pits Player B against somebody new.
The tournament is thus not remembering or rewarding overall tournament performance equally. In combating one unfairness, it creates a new one. Of course, arguably giving people a headstart in an 'extended' BO5 does the same for those players who were eliminated earlier and have been fighting their way through the losers' bracket.
Regardless, it's a fairly small niggle. Certainly not something that would stop me buying the stream - MLG 2011 looks pretty awesome.
|
Nvm found another thread.
|
I'm interested to know how MLG will seed their next event, whether it is based solely on 2011 results, or both 2010/2011 results.
I did a small big of number crunching to get what both seedings would be....
+ Show Spoiler +1. root.KiWiKaKi (P) - 3445
2. Liquid`HuK (P) - 3325
3. d.SeleCT (T) - 3100
4. ROOT.drewbie (T) - 2385
5. FnaticTT1 (P) - 2360
6. Liquid`Tyler (P) - 2240
7. root.SLush (Z) - 2150
8. LG.PainUser (T) - 2110
9. EG.IdrA (Z) - 2040
10. Alternate.Socke (P) - 1925
11. Liquid`Jinro (T) - 1800
12. Liquid`TLO (R) - 1750
13. EG.iNcontroL (P) - 1720
14. root.qxc (T) - 1610
15. Liquid`Ret (Z) - 1430
16. EG.Machine (Z) - 1285
-------------
17. Naniwa (P) - 1200
18. LG.Agh (P) - 1170
19. d.SjoW (T) - 1100
20. LG.Nadagast (T) - 965
21. FnaticGretorp (T) - 860
22. ajtls (T) - 850
23. CauthonLuck (T) - 650
24. Masq (T) - 620
25. EG.LzGaMeR (T) - 620
26. LG.iNkA (T) - 565
27. avilo (T) - 560
28. FXOMoonan (T) - 550
29. Silver (T) - 310
30. LG.ReSpOnSe (P) - 290
31. Haypro (Z) - 250
32. FnaticFenix (T) - 240
(Just miss out Sheth, Mihai, Vibe)
1. Naniwa 1200
2. Kiwikaki 1000
3. SeleCT 900
4. Incontrol 800
5. TLO 700
6. Socke 650
7. IdrA 600
8. Moonan 550
9-12. HuK 490
9-12. Drewbie 460
9-12. Slush 430
9-12. Sjow 400
13-16. Tyler 340
13-16. Machine 310
13-16. Ret 280
13-16. Haypro 250
------------------
17-20. Sheth 210
17-20. Mihai 200
17-20. Vibe 190
17-20. Gretorp 180
20-24. Painuser 140
20-24. Agh 130
20-24. qxc 120
20-24. Optikzero 110
25-28. Thisisjimmy 90
25-28. Spades 80
25-28. dde 70
25-28. LZgamer 60
29-32. Kawaiirice 40
29-32. nkulunkulu 30
29-32. Hawk 20
29-32. Cocoa. 10 It should be noted that seeding off this years results will give last years results some benefit anyway due to the nature of the bracket, and therefore I think it is only fair to ignore last years results when doing seeding from now on (otherwise there is too much history to erase with players who have not kept up skill-wise). On the other hand, TT1 and Jinro deserve something for doing so well last year but not being able to attend this particular MLG. It is a tough position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
