|
On August 16 2011 12:23 Hondelul wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 12:09 Mordiford wrote:On August 16 2011 12:02 Hondelul wrote:On August 16 2011 11:10 Orcasgt24 wrote:
I can not belive people think having a Bo7 with the winners bracket guy getting a 1-0 head-start is fair...
His opponent dropped 2/3 games to someone earlier. Why should the guy who hasn't dropped 2/3 games to someone be punished so harshly? This idea is acctually WORSE then MLG's extended seirse rule. A hard decission imo, let´s compare in IPL2  White-Ra:  CocoA 2:0--- BRAT_OK 2:0---- SeleCT 2:1--- Strelok 3:0--- MaNa 3:2---  Nerchio 3:1 Nerchio: KiWiKaKi 2:0 --- Minigun 2:1 --- ViBE 2:0--- GoOdy 2:1--- Ret 3:0--- IdrA 3:0--- ThorZaIN 3:1--- MaNa 3:2 Should White-Ra have an advantage in the finals? Yes What advantage is fair? Having the opponent to win 2 Bo5 is too strong imo, LB have a way larger way. An Bo7 with 1:0 is (imo!) the best way. Keeps the excitement and isn´t unfair for the WB finalist. Or, we can give both players equal ground in terms of format instead of arbitrarily decided what is too big of an advantage. Nerchio got to drop a set, White-ra should get to drop a set. If you want to stop one format, and transition into another, it should happen when the BoX number increases so that one person doesn't get to drop a Bo3, while the other person gets to drop a Bo5, which is the only real issue that could be raised in regards to the quantity within a set. So get to Ro16 or Ro8, and then no more double elimination or something like that. Trying to splice the formats to make it more exciting for the final is unfair to the player in the winner bracket final. Furthermore, for the people deciding on their own that "Playing less games is an advantage enough", that's an advantage they earned by not losing, it's inherent to the format, just because the earned their way to having to play fewer games, doesn't mean they should be penalized and not given the same ability to drop a set that everyone else in the tournament gets. If you want double elimination all the way up to the finals, it's absolutely unfair to remove it for the WB finalist, no amount of, "Well, he had to play less" changes that. They don't get to drop a set, their opponent got to drop a set, trying to create a comparison to something else shouldn't be necessary, all of this is inherent to the format. In short, if you want single elimination, you want single elimination, if you want double elimination till the RoX, that's fine too, but if you want double elimination for everyone except the WB finalist, that is absolutely unfair. Hm, I think I made it sound quite fair.. You sound quite harsh For my example: White-Ra had to play 6 series (7 if he lost against Nerchio in the 1st); Nerchio had to play 10 if he won the first against White-Ra. I totally agree the WB have to get an advantage, but where is the cut? You have a good point with the change from Bo3 to Bo5, but there are no overall rules. At HSC none seemed to be offended by WB being up 1:0, might be the atmosphere, that none took it too serious (I personly don´t believe that) OR they saw this as fair as being up one Bo5 series. Therefore my point with the Pro poll, I think arguing between us don´t make much sense  (PS: no, I don´t want single elimination)
what do you mean where is the cut?
standard double elimination has been used competitively for a LONG time, especially in video games. having to lose 2 series to get eliminated is the most basic and only rule you need to know in double elimination.
|
On August 16 2011 12:23 Hondelul wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 12:09 Mordiford wrote:On August 16 2011 12:02 Hondelul wrote:On August 16 2011 11:10 Orcasgt24 wrote:
I can not belive people think having a Bo7 with the winners bracket guy getting a 1-0 head-start is fair...
His opponent dropped 2/3 games to someone earlier. Why should the guy who hasn't dropped 2/3 games to someone be punished so harshly? This idea is acctually WORSE then MLG's extended seirse rule. A hard decission imo, let´s compare in IPL2 White-Ra: CocoA 2:0--- BRAT_OK 2:0---- SeleCT 2:1--- Strelok 3:0--- MaNa 3:2--- Nerchio 3:1 Nerchio: KiWiKaKi 2:0 --- Minigun 2:1 --- ViBE 2:0--- GoOdy 2:1--- Ret 3:0--- IdrA 3:0--- ThorZaIN 3:1--- MaNa 3:2 Should White-Ra have an advantage in the finals? Yes What advantage is fair? Having the opponent to win 2 Bo5 is too strong imo, LB have a way larger way. An Bo7 with 1:0 is (imo!) the best way. Keeps the excitement and isn´t unfair for the WB finalist. Or, we can give both players equal ground in terms of format instead of arbitrarily decided what is too big of an advantage. Nerchio got to drop a set, White-ra should get to drop a set. If you want to stop one format, and transition into another, it should happen when the BoX number increases so that one person doesn't get to drop a Bo3, while the other person gets to drop a Bo5, which is the only real issue that could be raised in regards to the quantity within a set. So get to Ro16 or Ro8, and then no more double elimination or something like that. Trying to splice the formats to make it more exciting for the final is unfair to the player in the winner bracket final. Furthermore, for the people deciding on their own that "Playing less games is an advantage enough", that's an advantage they earned by not losing, it's inherent to the format, just because the earned their way to having to play fewer games, doesn't mean they should be penalized and not given the same ability to drop a set that everyone else in the tournament gets. If you want double elimination all the way up to the finals, it's absolutely unfair to remove it for the WB finalist, no amount of, "Well, he had to play less" changes that. They don't get to drop a set, their opponent got to drop a set, trying to create a comparison to something else shouldn't be necessary, all of this is inherent to the format. In short, if you want single elimination, you want single elimination, if you want double elimination till the RoX, that's fine too, but if you want double elimination for everyone except the WB finalist, that is absolutely unfair. Hm, I think I made it sound quite fair.. You sound quite harsh For my example: White-Ra had to play 6 series (7 if he lost against Nerchio in the 1st); Nerchio had to play 10 if he won the first against White-Ra. I totally agree the WB have to get an advantage, but where is the cut? You have a good point with the change from Bo3 to Bo5, but there are no overall rules. At HSC none seemed to be offended by WB being up 1:0, might be the atmosphere, that none took it too serious (I personly don´t believe that) OR they saw this as fair as being up one Bo5 series. Therefore my point with the Pro poll, I think arguing between us don´t make much sense (PS: no, I don´t want single elimination)
For the HomeStory cup, to me it was essentially the atmosphere, so I didn't really care, I thought the tournament was great. But I'll go ahead and say it, the format used towards the end was unfair to the WB finalist.
For the IPL, White-ra had to play fewer games because he didn't lose... Nerchio lost, got a second chance, had to play more games sure, but comes back to the finals and now instead of White-ra getting the same right to a second chance, similar to Nerchio, he gets 1 game up? That is clearly unfair, sure he had to play less people, but that's because he never lost, you can't try to create a comparison like that, you are effectively taking a decision away from him for not losing in addition to a privilege that everyone else in the tournament received.
So once again, at the end of the day... If you want to use the double elimination format, then in my opinion, you should use the double elimination format. If you want to use the single elimination format, you should use the single elimination format, if you want to use one up till a certain round and then have everyone switch to single elimination(sort of like a mini-qualifier), that's fine too. But using one format until the end, and then arbitrarily thinking up what advantage a player should be given to keep in entertaining is not in the spirit of competition.
There should be no player names and numbers necessary, one player gets to drop a set, the other player gets to drop a set. It's pretty straight forward. If one player had to play more games, it's because he lost, it's his fault, just like it's the WB Finalist's own performance that earned him that spot, you shouldn't penalize someone for winning every match they played.
|
On August 16 2011 08:11 akalarry wrote:
everyone who says double elimination is more boring, let's take a look at gsl.
players that placed second in the gsl such as rain, inca, losira (<3) made the gsl finals less interesting, and this is because of single elimination. if it was double elimination, there would have been a higher chance of someone like mc, nada, bomber, nestea(when he got eliminated by rain) to play in the grand finals. how is that not MORE exciting?
let's say during the gsl with nestea vs inca, bomber worked his way to grand finals from losers bracket. yes he'd have to win 2 best of 5s, but at least we get to see ONE best of 5 MINIMUM. if bomber beats nestea in the first bo5, then that's more hype than even a single elimination game... double elimination makes it that much more likely that the grand finals will have the better players, making for more exciting games.
once again, i challenge someone to find a video game tournament where double elimination made finals less boring, and i'll challenge myself to find ones that made it even more exciting.
GSL finals were boring because of the luck of the draw. TSL3 had single elimination and the final was extremely exciting. The same with NASL and the most recent Dreamhack.
In my opinion, if you lose a bo5 to a "weaker" player (which happens from the ro8 onwards), you don't deserve to be in the tournament.
|
On August 16 2011 12:28 akalarry wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 12:23 Hondelul wrote:Hm, I think I made it sound quite fair.. You sound quite harsh For my example: White-Ra had to play 6 series (7 if he lost against Nerchio in the 1st); Nerchio had to play 10 if he won the first against White-Ra. I totally agree the WB have to get an advantage, but where is the cut? You have a good point with the change from Bo3 to Bo5, but there are no overall rules. At HSC none seemed to be offended by WB being up 1:0, might be the atmosphere, that none took it too serious (I personly don´t believe that) OR they saw this as fair as being up one Bo5 series. Therefore my point with the Pro poll, I think arguing between us don´t make much sense (PS: no, I don´t want single elimination) what do you mean where is the cut? standard double elimination has been used competitively for a LONG time, especially in video games. having to lose 2 series to get eliminated is the most basic and only rule you need to know in double elimination.
Sorry, you didn´t catch the point of me discussing with Mondiford (well, I hope I didn´t get it wrong), he talked about switching the format when changing from Bo3 to Bo5.
So my point was that there are no general rules.
Nerchio lost a Bo3 in the beginning an fought through 4 Bo5 befor facing White-Ra. White-Ra fought 2 Bo5 before facing Nerchio, this is a difference
I know what double elimination is, and I know it is more fair. The point for me is, "where is the cut" haha, expecting your answer, probably we just don´t get each other
Edit:
On August 16 2011 12:32 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 12:23 Hondelul wrote:On August 16 2011 12:09 Mordiford wrote:On August 16 2011 12:02 Hondelul wrote:On August 16 2011 11:10 Orcasgt24 wrote:
I can not belive people think having a Bo7 with the winners bracket guy getting a 1-0 head-start is fair...
His opponent dropped 2/3 games to someone earlier. Why should the guy who hasn't dropped 2/3 games to someone be punished so harshly? This idea is acctually WORSE then MLG's extended seirse rule. A hard decission imo, let´s compare in IPL2 White-Ra: CocoA 2:0--- BRAT_OK 2:0---- SeleCT 2:1--- Strelok 3:0--- MaNa 3:2--- Nerchio 3:1 Nerchio: KiWiKaKi 2:0 --- Minigun 2:1 --- ViBE 2:0--- GoOdy 2:1--- Ret 3:0--- IdrA 3:0--- ThorZaIN 3:1--- MaNa 3:2 Should White-Ra have an advantage in the finals? Yes What advantage is fair? Having the opponent to win 2 Bo5 is too strong imo, LB have a way larger way. An Bo7 with 1:0 is (imo!) the best way. Keeps the excitement and isn´t unfair for the WB finalist. Or, we can give both players equal ground in terms of format instead of arbitrarily decided what is too big of an advantage. Nerchio got to drop a set, White-ra should get to drop a set. If you want to stop one format, and transition into another, it should happen when the BoX number increases so that one person doesn't get to drop a Bo3, while the other person gets to drop a Bo5, which is the only real issue that could be raised in regards to the quantity within a set. So get to Ro16 or Ro8, and then no more double elimination or something like that. Trying to splice the formats to make it more exciting for the final is unfair to the player in the winner bracket final. Furthermore, for the people deciding on their own that "Playing less games is an advantage enough", that's an advantage they earned by not losing, it's inherent to the format, just because the earned their way to having to play fewer games, doesn't mean they should be penalized and not given the same ability to drop a set that everyone else in the tournament gets. If you want double elimination all the way up to the finals, it's absolutely unfair to remove it for the WB finalist, no amount of, "Well, he had to play less" changes that. They don't get to drop a set, their opponent got to drop a set, trying to create a comparison to something else shouldn't be necessary, all of this is inherent to the format. In short, if you want single elimination, you want single elimination, if you want double elimination till the RoX, that's fine too, but if you want double elimination for everyone except the WB finalist, that is absolutely unfair. Hm, I think I made it sound quite fair.. You sound quite harsh For my example: White-Ra had to play 6 series (7 if he lost against Nerchio in the 1st); Nerchio had to play 10 if he won the first against White-Ra. I totally agree the WB have to get an advantage, but where is the cut? You have a good point with the change from Bo3 to Bo5, but there are no overall rules. At HSC none seemed to be offended by WB being up 1:0, might be the atmosphere, that none took it too serious (I personly don´t believe that) OR they saw this as fair as being up one Bo5 series. Therefore my point with the Pro poll, I think arguing between us don´t make much sense (PS: no, I don´t want single elimination) For the HomeStory cup, to me it was essentially the atmosphere, so I didn't really care, I thought the tournament was great. But I'll go ahead and say it, the format used towards the end was unfair to the WB finalist. For the IPL, White-ra had to play fewer games because he didn't lose... Nerchio lost, got a second chance, had to play more games sure, but comes back to the finals and now instead of White-ra getting the same right to a second chance, similar to Nerchio, he gets 1 game up? That is clearly unfair, sure he had to play less people, but that's because he never lost, you can't try to create a comparison like that, you are effectively taking a decision away from him for not losing in addition to a privilege that everyone else in the tournament received. So once again, at the end of the day... If you want to use the double elimination format, then in my opinion, you should use the double elimination format. If you want to use the single elimination format, you should use the single elimination format, if you want to use one up till a certain round and then have everyone switch to single elimination(sort of like a mini-qualifier), that's fine too. But using one format until the end, and then arbitrarily thinking up what advantage a player should be given to keep in entertaining is not in the spirit of competition. There should be no player names and numbers necessary, one player gets to drop a set, the other player gets to drop a set. It's pretty straight forward. If one player had to play more games, it's because he lost, it's his fault, just like it's the WB Finalist's own performance that earned him that spot, you shouldn't penalize someone for winning every match they played.
I got your point (really) but are you really not bumped down from a final (look at EU Blizzcon qualifiers) where the finals is one Bo3?
One Bo3 is fair as the loser lost 1 Bo3 before. A Bo5 in the finals is not "fair" as the loser lost an Bo3 befor and now have to win 2 Bo5.
Ah I think I can´t express what I mean at the moment (wohoo 5:45 in the morning, well I can watch HuK as it seems)
|
i think that if you make it to the finals through the losers bracket you shouldn't be at a disadvantage in the grand finals.
|
On August 16 2011 12:38 Hondelul wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 12:28 akalarry wrote:On August 16 2011 12:23 Hondelul wrote:Hm, I think I made it sound quite fair.. You sound quite harsh For my example: White-Ra had to play 6 series (7 if he lost against Nerchio in the 1st); Nerchio had to play 10 if he won the first against White-Ra. I totally agree the WB have to get an advantage, but where is the cut? You have a good point with the change from Bo3 to Bo5, but there are no overall rules. At HSC none seemed to be offended by WB being up 1:0, might be the atmosphere, that none took it too serious (I personly don´t believe that) OR they saw this as fair as being up one Bo5 series. Therefore my point with the Pro poll, I think arguing between us don´t make much sense (PS: no, I don´t want single elimination) what do you mean where is the cut? standard double elimination has been used competitively for a LONG time, especially in video games. having to lose 2 series to get eliminated is the most basic and only rule you need to know in double elimination. Sorry, you didn´t catch the point of me discussing with Mondiford (well, I hope I didn´t get it wrong), he talked about switching the format when changing from Bo3 to Bo5. So my point was that there are no general rules. Nerchio lost a Bo3 in the beginning an fought through 4 Bo5 befor facing White-Ra. White-Ra fought 2 Bo5 before facing Nerchio, this is a difference I know what double elimination is, and I know it is more fair. The point for me is, "where is the cut" haha, expecting your answer, probably we just don´t get each other
What do you mean where is the cut?
I'm saying very simply, if you want to change the format from double elimination to single elimination, do it when you're moving up from Bo3s to Bo5s in the Ro16 or Ro8 or whenever. It makes no sense to go all the way to the final with one format, and then flip flop and effectively make it so the LB Finalist played it as double elimination and the WB Finalist is playing it now as a single elimination tournament with one free game.
One free game does not compare to the ability to lose a series and keep going, sure you can bring up situations where if someone had gotten a free game, the whole tournament could have been so different but that's not what I'm talking about here, on pure numbers, which is all that matters in terms of fairness, not some situational, "Well X player had to play this guy and Y player didn't".
If one player gets to lose a set, the other player should get to lose a set. That is fairness.
If you want to make this change when reaching a specific round earlier in the tournament, that's fine, but after you get to the Ro8, having been able to lose one set is too much of an advantage to discard. That is the cut, you don't go to the finals and then say, "Yo bro, you don't get the same privilege as everyone else, instead you get a free game".
|
I agree with most people, upper-bracket advantage (of any sort) is only fair and justified.
Yet it takes away from the spectacle to a stupid degree. If im watching a final and one guy is 2-0 or, or needs to win just 1 bo3 compared to 2 bo3, then often I won't give it my full attention or even watch.
|
On August 16 2011 12:53 resilve wrote:
I agree with most people, upper-bracket advantage (of any sort) is only fair and justified.
Yet it takes away from the spectacle to a stupid degree. If im watching a final and one guy is 2-0 or, or needs to win just 1 bo3 compared to 2 bo3, then often I won't give it my full attention or even watch.
then you're missing out, because i can think of tons of tournaments where the guy coming from losers bracket came back and won the tournament, making it actually more hype and exciting then a single elimination tournament.
|
I have to agree. The finals of a tournament should be exciting to watch; knowing the results spoils that. Getting a fair match with the winner of the winners bracket is a completely fair prize for winning the losers bracket.
|
On August 16 2011 12:41 CatNzHat wrote:
i think that if you make it to the finals through the losers bracket you shouldn't be at a disadvantage in the grand finals.
So the player going throug the winner's bracket should get a disadvantage?
I guess most exciting system would be GSL in that kind. Starts off with double elim and turns into single elim after group stage.
|
Any other method would give a disadvantage to the Winners bracket player that no other player had to deal with. This thread is absurd, and the fact that so many people are voting for a b07 starting down one game... That's just ridiculous.
|
i agree, not that the original system is unfair or anything
just that it's not exciting and a bit counter-intuitive
if changes to BO7/ BO9 with winner having 1 or two game advantage, it would be more understandable and enjoyable for average viewers
|
One free game does not compare to the ability to lose a series and keep going, sure you can bring up situations where if someone had gotten a free game, the whole tournament could have been so different but that's not what I'm talking about here, on pure numbers, which is all that matters in terms of fairness, not some situational
Well, that´s the reason I don´t argue normally. 2 guys arguing don´t change their oppinion, so I have to disagree.
Having to win 2 Bo5 because you lost one Bo3 in the first round is not "fair" to me. Fighting through 3 more opponent (and 1 more Bo5) isn´t either.
I never said I want single elimination just in final I just don´t think that always double elim is fair to the LB winner.
If you think being 1:0 up in final would be so unfair why didn´t they complain at HSC? There was also much money on the line.
Ok, here is the point we will never have the same opinion
(ok, for the fun: even extended series with hmmm, Bo9 would be fair)
Edit: whoa havn´t that much mistakes in a looooooong time
|
On August 15 2011 23:44 Tofugrinder wrote:
in my opinion there is only one fair final: bo7/9 with no advantage for anyone. no extended series, no 1:0 advantage, no double bo3/5s etc..
That isn't fair at all for the person who hasn't lost a game. Going by your idea, there would be no advantage whatsoever for being the one who advanced through the winners bracket as opposed to the losers one, which is unfair, unjustifiable, and stupid.
|
On August 16 2011 12:58 dotNova wrote:
I have to agree. The finals of a tournament should be exciting to watch; knowing the results spoils that. Getting a fair match with the winner of the winners bracket is a completely fair prize for winning the losers bracket.
Yeah, and it's an unfair prize for winning the winner's bracket, he didn't lose a set, his opponent did.
It's not even footing if someone has used up their extra-life, so you just remove the other person's extra-life to make it more exciting. That's shitting on the sanctity of the competition.
On August 16 2011 13:02 Hondelul wrote:Show nested quote +One free game does not compare to the ability to lose a series and keep going, sure you can bring up situations where if someone had gotten a free game, the whole tournament could have been so different but that's not what I'm talking about here, on pure numbers, which is all that matters in terms of fairness, not some situational Well, that´s the reason I don´t argue normally. 2 guys arguing don´t change their oppinion, so I have to disagree. Having to win 2 Bo5 because you lost one Bo3 in the first round is not "fair" to me. Fighting through 3 more opponent (and 1 more Bo5) isn´t either. I never said I just don´t think that always double elim is fair to the LB winner. If you think being 1:0 up in final would be so unfair why didn´t they complain at HSC? There was also much money on the line. Ok, here is the point we will never have the same opinion Edit: whoa havn´t that much mistakes in a looooooong time
I already told you that the HSC final was unfair, but it didn't bother me because of nature of the event, and I guess it was the same for a number of other people. White-ra was fucking barbecuing 20 feet from where the games were going on, players may well have been half-drunk at times.
I already established quite simply, if you want to make it so the tournament is consistently Bo3's throughout, that's fine(I think that's what B.net Invitational did) and I believe that's also what MLG does. That's competitively fair, what the IPL did was not really a proper and fair implementation of the double elimination format as it should be, in my opinion. There should never be a question as to the number of games in a set(In the IPL example, Nerchio lost a Bo3 earlier, White-ra would get to lose a Bo5).
Hopefully that deals with any and all misunderstanding you have about my views on the format.
|
On August 16 2011 13:01 Phantom_Sky wrote:
i agree, not that the original system is unfair or anything
just that it's not exciting and a bit counter-intuitive
if changes to BO7/ BO9 with winner having 1 or two game advantage, it would be more understandable and enjoyable for average viewers
how is it counter-intuitive? It is a double elimination tournament. You have to lose two matches (which is the bo3 or whatever) to be eliminated. The same goes for everyone, including the winner of the WINNER'S bracket. If he loses the first bo3, he is not eliminated. Because it is double elimination and that is his FIRST loss. You have to lose TWICE to be eliminated.
|
I think a great deal of the problems with these events are created because there are too many entrants. More of the rubbish players should be eliminated before the tournament starts, and a single-elimination BO5 or BO7 tournament with 16 entrants after that. The only other problem is that we don't have an adequate seeding process, because there is no true "regular season" for the tournaments. To solve that a round robin process, after the early rubbish player weeding out process with some subjective scoring as a tiebreaker for seeding would work miracles.
I do not see anything wrong with asking unproven players to show up a day early to the tournament for the right to participate in the round robin seeding process. Those players are all better than I am, but the majority still get stomped even by mid-tier pros like incontrol or idra .
|
Bo9 o_O, you can't prepare 9 strategies, even bo7 is excessive. Almost every sc2 map has 4 bases as well, which means you have to practise building placement for 36 different positions!!!!
|
I would really like to see groupplay with seeds -> cupsystem with @ 16-32 players depending on how big MLG wants their tournament to be. And the cupsystem would obviously be single elimination. That is how every other competetive game/sport does it. I've always found it weird that a guy who has lost in round 1 can potentially still end up winning it all as he has faced worse competition than the one who comes from the winners bracket.
|
I already established quite simply, if you want to make it so the tournament is consistently Bo3's throughout, that's fine(I think that's what B.net Invitational did) and I believe that's also what MLG does. That's competitively fair, what the IPL did was not really a proper and fair implementation of the double elimination format as it should be, in my opinion. There should never be a question as to the number of games in a set(In the IPL example, Nerchio lost a Bo3 earlier, White-ra would get to lose a Bo5).
Ok, now I don´t know what we talked about.
I always said winning 2 Bo3 is fair, but it´s anticlimacticBlizzcon EU invite with one Bo3 as final was quite anticlimatic. US invite was quite fortunate that it went to second Bo3
As well as I always said that having to win Bo5 because of loosing a Bo3 isn´t fair imo
Having to win 2 Bo5 because you lost one Bo3 in the first round is not "fair" to me
But ok, it´s early (late for you), perhaps we just talked at cross purposes
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
