|
On April 15 2012 05:44 Zyrre wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 05:18 hugman wrote:On April 15 2012 04:54 Zyrre wrote:On April 15 2012 04:42 hugman wrote:On April 15 2012 03:56 Zyrre wrote:
The reason for using extended series is to more accurately decide who is the best player, since that is what a tournament is trying to do. It simply increases the accuracy while only adding a very small amount of extra games played.
You could reasonably argue that it detracts from excitement. Personally I would rather that they are more accurate, but to each his own.
Most people here though seem to argue my first statement, without using any arguments for it. The goal of a tournament isn't to determine who the best player is; the goal of a tournament is to decide a winner. Making a tournament about determining who the best player is turns it into complete nonsense. If you wanted it to be about that then you would strive for as much granularity in your judgement of a player's performance as possible. If it was about determining who's the best then shouldn't a proxy 2-rax or 6-pool count for less than an epic comeback in a 40 minute macro game? Well it doesn't. Every map win is worth the same. Every BoX win is worth the same. The tournament doesn't care about the fashion in which you won, if it was nice play or ugly play, if you beat a champion or a last minute replacement. Of course the goal is to determine the best player. We use double elim because we have to compromise. It uses a relatively low amount of games, it's easy to understand and there is a clear progression which builds excitement and makes it pleasurable to watch. Adding a very small amount of games in exchange for being more accurate and fair(and no harder to understand than the double boX that occur in double elim) seems like a good idea to me. It doesn't make it any more fair at all. Fairness is subjective. You can't use it as an argument for a rule. For example, why is it more fair to use head to head map score than overall map score? Extended series is bad because it's an inconsistency. Genius and MKP had both won one Bo3 and lost one Bo3. Because they had played eachother extended series would kick in and say that the mapscore, in just one of the three Bo3s that they had played, should matter and give Genius a disadvantage in the last match. It's changing the rules depending on who you play and it's arbitrary. The only way you get a semblance of fairness is if you keep the rules consistent, for everyone, every time. Fairness might be subjective, but a bo7 is still more accurate in determening who the better player is then two bo3s. Why would you call it arbitrary? Consistency does not mean good either. Every round is determined by a cointoss, thats consistent and terrible.
This is your opinion, some may think the best player is the player who can win ONE game with a week of preparation like some non electronics sport.
|
On April 14 2012 22:31 robinroz wrote:
Blue: For example, it's unfair to Mvp (in Mvp 4-1 Lucky) that he comes within a game of elimination even though, by final score, he is decidedly better than Lucky.
Thoughts?
Mvp lost his next game losing his advantage, while Lucky won it losing his disadvantage.
In my book, both players deserve to fight anew.
|
If you didn't put so much effort into the OP I swear you are just trolling, I mean, proposing to SC2 community MORE extended series ?
|
On April 15 2012 00:18 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 00:13 Derez wrote:
The GSL format is perfect as it is. Extended series lead to garbage, uninteresting games and round robin is not a viable alternative because playing 6 bo3's for every day of pool play would simply be too long. Tournaments need to be watchable from an entertainment perspective without having to sit in front of your TV for 8 hours. round robin are 6 bo3's. The system right now is 5 bo3's, I don't think this is the big problem.
6 BO3 + the possibility of tiebreakers. When it comes to broadcasting, that makes it even more difficult.
They also had a mix between a short round robin group and a "you might play the same guy twice" for most of the GSL, they'd just stop after 5 games most of the time if they could determine it by then. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_LG_Cinema_3D_Global_StarCraft_II_League_May/Code_S
|
On April 15 2012 05:44 Zyrre wrote:
Fairness might be subjective, but a bo7 is still more accurate in determening who the better player is then two bo3s.
Why would you call it arbitrary? Consistency does not mean good either. Every round is determined by a cointoss, thats consistent and terrible.
If the rules are too inconsistent between games then that sort of makes competition pointless. If every round is determined by a cointoss, then that's not a StarCraft tournament. If the number of games in each series is determined by a dice throw, then that's a StarCraft tournament with an inconsistent structure that makes the whole notion of competition pointless because you're not competing on equal terms.
Yes MKP beat Genuis the first time they met. So what? Genius beat Nestea. Why should MKP's game give him an advantage?
Is it also unfair if every game MKP loses is a nail biter, while every game Genius loses is a complete knock out?
|
Is it unfair if a baseball team the first 3 games in the world series 10-0 and then loses the next 4 games 1-0?
The total score is 30-4 for Team 1 but Team 2 wins the championship.
|
No, just because they are even score, the two sets are different, and here is why.
The winner of the first set gets an advantage, while the loser gets a disadvantage:
- The winner gets a chance to advance after winning one more set
- The loser risks getting eliminated if he loses his next set
THEREFORE, if they meet again, then the previous winner already "used up" that chance that was gained from his first win, while the loser battled back in his risky position of being eliminated.
Because of this, both players should be now on even grounds, since the advantage and punishment of the first set already existed.
|
I know everyone and their mothers hates the extended series rule, but I can see where he's coming from. A player get into the ro32 by beating one player twice, and possibly getting by on a single matchup, which seems very silly.
For example in the Naniwa, puzzle, ryung, MVP group we had a situation where ryung smashes MVP, loses to naniwa then loses to MVP. In this particular situation Ryung 2-0'd MVP, then MVP returned the favor, but let's say in the second series MVP 2-1's Ryung. That means Ryung goes 3-2 vs MVP and still fails to get through.
Now I definitely think the extended series rule is dumb as hell and GOM is right to avoid it like the plague, but I also sympathize with the players that get punished because of this rule. I'm also a little uneasy when an arguably bad player can remain in Code S, or even advance, by getting by on a single matchup.
I don't really know what is a good solution for this. Having the players play the advancing and failed to advance players doesn't really count for anything as it could be in these players favor to either throw a game, or conserve themselves. It may also be a little difficult to play it out seriously if there is nothing for them to player for.
There is always that loser round mentality for a hybrid rule, where I player plays a player that has previously defeated them and if they are victorious then they play another bo3 to find out who the better player is. That should show who is the better player of the two more conclusively, however that still does not address the issue of potentially lower skilled players getting through on a single matchup.
One thing that I believe most people on TL would agree to, though, is that none of us want to see extended series rules in the GSL.
|
The whole point of having a Bo-Series instead of a single game is to determine a better player.
Whether you win 2-0 or 2-1, you are the better player in the system.
If you believe a single games determines a better player, then there is no point in playing more than one game.
In general, in any Bo-Series, the person who wins more Series is the better player, not the one who can get more map wins.
There are no pointless games in this system, unlike the clusterfuck that IEM does.
|
I think the current GSL code S format is the best possible format given the time limitations they have.
The format is a variation of the Swiss system anyway, not really pure double elmination. The Danish variation to be precise.
It's a point based, not elimination, or head to head map scores.
Double elim is better off with the extended series, but the Code S system doesnt need it.
|
On April 15 2012 06:48 fire_brand wrote:
I know everyone and their mothers hates the extended series rule, but I can see where he's coming from. A player get into the ro32 by beating one player twice, and possibly getting by on a single matchup, which seems very silly.
For example in the Naniwa, puzzle, ryung, MVP group we had a situation where ryung smashes MVP, loses to naniwa then loses to MVP. In this particular situation Ryung 2-0'd MVP, then MVP returned the favor, but let's say in the second series MVP 2-1's Ryung. That means Ryung goes 3-2 vs MVP and still fails to get through.
Now I definitely think the extended series rule is dumb as hell and GOM is right to avoid it like the plague, but I also sympathize with the players that get punished because of this rule. I'm also a little uneasy when an arguably bad player can remain in Code S, or even advance, by getting by on a single matchup.
I don't really know what is a good solution for this. Having the players play the advancing and failed to advance players doesn't really count for anything as it could be in these players favor to either throw a game, or conserve themselves. It may also be a little difficult to play it out seriously if there is nothing for them to player for.
The logic is a bit flawed though, because you're only considering those two player's head to head (Ryung vs MVP in your example). But the whole point of having it a GROUP stage, is to determine the best two players in that GROUP. Therefore you need to consider both player's overall group performance, and not just their head to head. So in your example, MVP advances because his set score is 2-1, while Ryung's was 1-2; it's that simple.
|
On April 15 2012 06:36 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 05:44 Zyrre wrote:
Fairness might be subjective, but a bo7 is still more accurate in determening who the better player is then two bo3s.
Why would you call it arbitrary? Consistency does not mean good either. Every round is determined by a cointoss, thats consistent and terrible. If the rules are too inconsistent between games then that sort of makes competition pointless. If every round is determined by a cointoss, then that's not a StarCraft tournament. If the number of games in each series is determined by a dice throw, then that's a StarCraft tournament with an inconsistent structure that makes the whole notion of competition pointless because you're not competing on equal terms. Yes MKP beat Genuis the first time they met. So what? Genius beat Nestea. Why should MKP's game give him an advantage? Is it also unfair if every game MKP loses is a nail biter, while every game Genius loses is a complete knock out?
Yes, using a dice throw would be terrible because its arbitrary, extended series is not.
The point of it is to better approximate who the better player is. If two players face twice in one tournament, it presents us with an opportunity to have a more accurate bo7 instead of two bo3s.
You seem to think this is unfair to the player who loses the first bo3. However as stated in the op, using the two bo3s can eliminate the player who won more games against the other player in this specific tournament
MKP beating genius in their first series indicates he is a better player, Therefore he needed to win less games when they continued their bo7.
How is this different then saying: MKP beat genius in game 1 of this bo3, now he needs to win less games then genius to win this set, he has an advantage.
The only difference is you seeing them as two seperate series instead of one longer one, so time is the difference.
What if there is some computer problems and they have to wait 10 minutes in their bo3?
What if MKP loses next game to two 6 pools and the pause in between their bo7 is only 5 minutes?
Time seems arbitrary in this case.
|
No. Esports need to get rid of extended series. Double elimination should also only be used in the beginning stages when there's 128+ players, but when it's down to 32 or less players group stages and single elimination is the way to go.
|
|
|
On April 15 2012 07:03 Champloo wrote:
No. Esports need to get rid of extended series. Double elimination should also only be used in the beginning stages when there's 128+ players, but when it's down to 32 or less players group stages and single elimination is the way to go.
Yep, something I've been advocating around as well. It's all about making it count when your life is on the line.
|
Nobody actually wants the best 2 players to come out of the group, they just want to have "double elimination" at it's purest form because for some reason they think it's better.
I do not understand this position at all, why should a certain tournament format be sacrosanct?!?
I guess I'll never get it.
|
|
|
obviously is more fair the MLG way. I'd actually like to see a rather detailed response from a pro player who was unfaired by the extended series thing.
|
Are you kidding? Do you know how many people absolutely despise the MLG format. It often makes for the most anti-climactic finishes to what could potentially be good series. I'm sorry, but series should always be independent.
I'll use hockey as an example, but it applies for many sports. At the end of the season, the playoffs start. In the first round, those teams have played each other anywhere from 4-8 times in the regular season, and nobody has ever felt the need for an "extended series". Oh, team A won the season series 4-0 so they automatically move on... ya, it wouldn't be so awesome. New series bring new scenarios. Playing each other in group play is a far different feeling than playing someone in the semi-finals or the grand-finals.
The extended series rule is, in my opinion, the worst rule that is currently involved in e-sports.
|
Lol. I never thought there were people out there who enjoyed Extended Series. I'll just never understand some people's twisted minds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
