EPTOn March 31 2011 09:10 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
A swiss tournament with this number of players is simply impossible.
A swiss tournament with this number of players is simply impossible.
Are you serious? It's only 8 rounds.
MLG Format Explanation - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
Are you serious? It's only 8 rounds. | ||
|
oGm`REM
United States870 Posts
It's very similar to MLG Halo's format with the whole championship bracket/open bracket. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On March 04 2011 22:41 Bobster wrote: Yeah... would be terrible if any of these "pros" would have to play a metric ton of games to make it to the final: SjoW Gretorp CauthonLuck iNkA LzGaMeR Silver ReSpOnSe Fenix Sen Nazgul CatZ ThisisJimmy WhiteRa KawaiiRice VTSpades Torch Moonan Haypro Vibe dde OH WAIT But seriously, I still think having the best players 1) play mostly non-knockout games 2) play way fewer games than all other players 3) get a Top 24 spot guaranteed in a 272 player field is pretty bad from an organisational, a fairness and a spectator perspective. Knockout games are always more entertaining to watch than relatively meaningless round robin games. Yes, it's been said many times before. The alarm bells should have gone off when no changes were made to the extended series spiel. There is nothing we can do about it. It's a slap in the face to everyone who competes and compete they will. The money is too good. Hell, MLG could dress them up in pink tutus and they will still play. They have full control. | ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
I'm not talking about rounds, I'm talking about sheer coordination and # of games played. Given the varying game lengths in SC2 and # of people having to play at once, I'm not sure how you could logistically run it. Further, from a spectator point of view, Swiss is extremely unsatisfying to watch. The tournament ends, but there is no final showdown. As a casual player in any tournament setting Swiss is the best, but that's about it. | ||
|
Neoattitude
Guam172 Posts
| ||
|
Teoyaomqui
Sweden326 Posts
Too bad it's a really bad format, like many others have stated before me. So favored for the seeded players it's silly. I wonder if a seeded player who loses every match and finishes 21-24th will actually get ranking points for it, that would be hilarious. I'm really baffled this format hasn't gotten more negative attention. Do even the seeded players think this is a good/fair system? Everyone is complaining about extended series, but that's really a non-issue compared to this new format. Well, let's hope for some good games at least... | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
On March 31 2011 09:26 I_Love_Bacon wrote: I'm not talking about rounds, I'm talking about sheer coordination and # of games played. Given the varying game lengths in SC2 and # of people having to play at once, I'm not sure how you could logistically run it. Further, from a spectator point of view, Swiss is extremely unsatisfying to watch. The tournament ends, but there is no final showdown. As a casual player in any tournament setting Swiss is the best, but that's about it. I don't see the big difference considering they are already running a 256 player tournament as it is. All kinds of software available at no cost to keep track of it all. I disagree with it being unsatisfying to watch. I think double elim promotes more anti climatic finals. Swiss gives you a final showdown between the two best players in the tournament. Swiss tournament is harder to consistently win in and it provides the best matchups to see imo. My idea in a tournament is the best player wins. I'm not really into the big hype finals format double elim brings to the table. I see double elim benefiting the promoter more than the community. | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On March 31 2011 09:49 Teoyaomqui wrote: Thanks OP for breaking the format down, very easy to follow. Too bad it's a really bad format, like many others have stated before me. So favored for the seeded players it's silly. I wonder if a seeded player who loses every match and finishes 21-24th will actually get ranking points for it, that would be hilarious. I'm really baffled this format hasn't gotten more negative attention. Do even the seeded players think this is a good/fair system? Everyone is complaining about extended series, but that's really a non-issue compared to this new format. Well, let's hope for some good games at least... That's actually a really interesting point...someone dropping all of their games from the seeded pool might earn points for it. On the other hand, they're supposed to be losing to other monstrous players and it should theoretically be much easier to drop a ton of games up there. In contrast, someone dropping games right off the start could be losing to IJustCameForTheHotPockets39 or an underdog professional like Torch. I'd be interested in seeing either reasoning why it's alright to gain points for a complete losing streak when seeded or a way to avoid the issue. It's way beyond me. | ||
|
Raysalis
Malaysia1034 Posts
 .Would be interesting to see how much nerd stomping Huk needs to do if he turns up  | ||
|
coolcor
520 Posts
| ||
|
Teoyaomqui
Sweden326 Posts
On March 31 2011 10:03 Baarn wrote: I don't see the big difference considering they are already running a 256 player tournament as it is. All kinds of software available at no cost to keep track of it all. I disagree with it being unsatisfying to watch. I think double elim promotes more anti climatic finals. Swiss gives you a final showdown between the two best players in the tournament. Swiss tournament is harder to consistently win in and it provides the best matchups to see imo. My idea in a tournament is the best player wins. I'm not really into the big hype finals format double elim brings to the table. I see double elim benefiting the promoter more than the community. I really like swiss too and it's probably the best format for determining the best player, however, I don't think it's possible in massive fields in SC2. Just imagine in every round there's likely to be a TvT match that drags on for a very long time that must end before any of the games in the next round can start. Especially after a couple of rounds when all the bad players are playing each other I can imagine some games going on for much longer than needed. In a double elimination tournament there will be as many games for the first 2 rounds, but then people get knocked out pretty quickly speeding up the tournament. Also, round 2 matches can start even though there are some round 1 matches lagging behind, which means less waiting time for players/viewers which is very important. On March 31 2011 10:13 urashimakt wrote:I'd be interested in seeing either reasoning why it's alright to gain points for a complete losing streak when seeded or a way to avoid the issue. It's way beyond me. Even if they implemented some special rule avoiding that specific case it is very likely someone will end with a total of 1 win 4 losses placing 17-20th, I don't know if that's supposed to be better. So yeah, I'm not really a fan of this format... | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
Anyone know how the point system works for players competing in the open bracket? For instance, do the players who make it out of the open bracket stage get bonus points? The point system is still unclear. All I know is the seeds have a huge advantage over the non-seeded. What has MLG implemented to even up the playing field for those trying hard to gain championship points? I understand they are only using the points from last season for the season opener in Dallas, right? Moving forward, the next tournament is based on Dallas, etc. | ||
|
TofuFox
374 Posts
The MLG format gives 807 Bo3 (counting 2 Bo3 for the final, and no extended series). A swiss-style format going all 8 rounds with the 256 player count would give 1024 games to get one person 8-0 (and one poor sap 0-8). As for admin work, on the one hand Swiss has no 10 consecutive Bo3 in one day logjam (LBR1-CLBR2, then CLBR3-Finals); on the other, if you're using seeds to generate the pairing it may take a fair amount of work to keep it running smoothly, especially as I'm not sure how many matches in overlapping rounds you could run; and there may not be that many good matches until the later rounds. Plus, Swiss is nothing more than single-elimination with reseeding in terms of getting a winner for games like Starcraft with a clear win/lose result, unless you paste a bracket onto the top <x> finishers at the end. I'm also wondering what you mean by a double-elimination as adding "unnecessary matches to a tournament"; in terms of finding a winner (in games with clear w/l with pure swiss), just over 75% (769/1024 for 256 player) of games in a swiss style tournament are between effectively eliminated players, while no game in a double-elim does. I mean, I can see the uses of it for players and if you spread the prizepool out a little differently, but I think in terms of a spectator sport like Starcraft there is just going to be too much dead time in between matches as you wait for rounds to resolve, and too much time before you're assured of top players matching off since rounds will take so long. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
The probability that one of the 16 seeded players will win the tournament: 79.375% The probability that someone coming from the open qualifiers will win the tournament: 20.625% The probability for one seeded player to win the tournament: 4.96% The probability for one open qualifier player to win the tournament (if 256 qualifiers): 0.08% For any individual player, the probability to win is 62 times higher if you're seeded than if you're playing the open qualifier. This isn't even taking into account fatigue which is going to affect the qualifiers hugely and the championship match format (where the player coming from the winner's bracket only needs to win one Bo3, which skew the results in the seeded players' favour even more). Now, obviously 4 qualifiers will get into pool play, which will also give them a 4.96% shot (although getting there is extremely unlikely for any given player). If we therefore count the chances of winning of all the players in pool play together, we get 20x4.96%=99.2%. Now where did those 0.8% go? Well, that's the combined chance of all the players that don't make pool play (ie. drop any series during the qualifiers in a 256 man bracket) to win this tournament. Seriously MLG? | ||
|
Jampackedeon
United States2053 Posts
Best of 3s are such a crapshoot in terms of allowing the better player to win, as we've seen time and again in the GSL. It will be HUGELY anti-climatic for MLG, and frankly bad for spectators to wait through a 2-3 day tournament where the head to head between the last 3 players could be over in as little as 20-40 minutes. Can you imagine the epic games of Nestea vs MKP if was only a Bo3? First of all, Nestea would have lost and second of all it was only 20 minutes of programming. Ugh.. at least the pool play and champions bracket leading up to the finals will be exciting. | ||
|
Jampackedeon
United States2053 Posts
On March 31 2011 11:37 Orome wrote: Only just stumbled on this. Holy cow that's a bad format. I get that they want to have interesting matches from the start, but wow. Now, it's 4am and I hope to god I haven't messed my numbers up, but this is what I got from doing a little late-night math, assuming all players are 50/50 vs. each other. Should be correct. The probability that one of the 16 seeded players will win the tournament: 79.375% The probability that someone coming from the open qualifiers will win the tournament: 20.625% The probability for one seeded player to win the tournament: 4.96% The probability for one open qualifier player to win the tournament (if 256 qualifiers): 0.08% For any individual player, the probability to win is 62 times higher if you're seeded than if you're playing the open qualifier. This isn't even taking into account fatigue which is going to affect the qualifiers hugely and the championship match format (where the player coming from the winner's bracket only needs to win one Bo3, which skew the results in the seeded players' favour even more). Now, obviously 4 qualifiers will get into pool play, which will also give them a 4.96% shot (although getting there is extremely unlikely for any given player). If we therefore count the chances of winning of all the players in pool play together, we get 20x4.96%=99.2%. Now where did those 0.8% go? Well, that's the combined chance of all the players that don't make pool play (ie. drop any series during the qualifiers in a 256 man bracket) to win this tournament. Seriously MLG? Ouch. Yeah, I figured it was something that bad. I think having such short series in the chamionship bracket is also painful to all parties involved: spectators, players, and MLG. | ||
|
-FoX
United States479 Posts
| ||
|
Antedelerium
United States224 Posts
On March 31 2011 11:37 Orome wrote: Only just stumbled on this. Holy cow that's a bad format. I get that they want to have interesting matches from the start, but wow. Now, it's 4am and I hope to god I haven't messed my numbers up, but this is what I got from doing a little late-night math, assuming all players are 50/50 vs. each other. Should be correct. The probability that one of the 16 seeded players will win the tournament: 79.375% The probability that someone coming from the open qualifiers will win the tournament: 20.625% The probability for one seeded player to win the tournament: 4.96% The probability for one open qualifier player to win the tournament (if 256 qualifiers): 0.08% For any individual player, the probability to win is 62 times higher if you're seeded than if you're playing the open qualifier. This isn't even taking into account fatigue which is going to affect the qualifiers hugely and the championship match format (where the player coming from the winner's bracket only needs to win one Bo3, which skew the results in the seeded players' favour even more). Now, obviously 4 qualifiers will get into pool play, which will also give them a 4.96% shot (although getting there is extremely unlikely for any given player). If we therefore count the chances of winning of all the players in pool play together, we get 20x4.96%=99.2%. Now where did those 0.8% go? Well, that's the combined chance of all the players that don't make pool play (ie. drop any series during the qualifiers in a 256 man bracket) to win this tournament. Seriously MLG? True, but that's assuming that each Bo3 is like a 50-50 coin flip. Skill plays a lot into it. Yes, it sucks for people in the open qualifier due to the sheer number of matches they have to play, but do well, get some points, and do better in the next round. That's how it goes. It's a season and this is just one event. Arguments aside, thanks for this. I feel like actually understand the whole format for the first time. Awesome graphic too for lazy people who didn't end up reading the whole thing. | ||
|
neo_sporin
United States516 Posts
| ||
|
ki11z0ne
United States427 Posts
| ||
| ||
