EPTThe advantage you get for staying in the winners bracket is a much shorter path to the finals.
Serral wins HomeStory Cup 19 - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
BronzeKnee
United States5224 Posts
The advantage you get for staying in the winners bracket is a much shorter path to the finals. | ||
|
tigon_ridge
482 Posts
On July 02 2019 13:03 BronzeKnee wrote: Man, I hate when the person from the winners bracket gets a map advantage.. it's dumb. The advantage you get for staying in the winners bracket is a much shorter path to the finals. If TY had won the grand final with a 4-3 score, it could be considered highly contentious due to the fact that their total score would be 6-5 in Serral's favor. Also, I'm not sure it's justifiable that one should to be able to have a chance to still win the tournament after taking a lost match just because one defeated the 3rd place holder, without some kind of additional hurdle. Ironically, the winner of the winners bracket but loser of the grand final doesn't get such opportunity to earn a chance to get back at winning 1st place after having taken his only lost match. Imagine this dialogue of the "winner" toward the "runner up": "Hey, look at that. I won the tournament even though you technically kicked my ass overall in the playoff...just because I also happened to beat the 3rd place guy, who by definition is worse than you. LooooL" | ||
|
435
39 Posts
| ||
|
tigon_ridge
482 Posts
On July 02 2019 15:06 435 wrote: Serral will definitely win blizzcon this year. He is toOo good. Superior player and human being. Strongest will power, presence and intelligence. When you watch him, you can definitely see aura of wisdom. He has seen things to come. When korean boys watch him, they will definitely see aura of flaming death. Serral is our god and saviour. Serral gives us hope and light. Serral is sun and moon, our father and mother. He saves us from korean tyranny and breed our children. I will give all my wifes to serral. Serral will win all the money and smix as well. Aside from implying that Smix would be okay with the undignified position of being part of a harem, you may have won the internet. | ||
|
UnLarva
458 Posts
TY got 2nd chance against Serral, and used it pretty well. If Serral would have lost the grand finals to TY, 1 game advantage would look rather bad compensation compared to chance to play again after already losing entire playoffs match. If anything winner advantage should be more than one map, not less to it be fair to a winner for him maintaining his position in winner bracket. I don't get what troubles so many people here exactly. | ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7579 Posts
I dislike the +1 map in the finals. I think regardless of how many paths to the finals, once there, the players have earned their place and as such deserve an even match. I don't buy the "losers should be punished" or the converse logic. Serral, like all the other players, had the safety net of the losers bracket if he lost match ups to a certain point. The safety net of the losers bracket is supposed to give good players a second shot and to reduce randomness. Instead of +1 in a bo7, which is a huge advantage, winner of the winners bracket, should get 25% of the prize fund. Reward it with cash. Making pro gamers play handicapped matches is unfair and unsportsmen-like. This time it worked to a player I admires advantage, and I am still against it. The current reward for the winners bracket - less games, is already enough without adding a cash bonus. Please consider changing the system. Serral or TY or whoever else, do not deserve to have their result besmirched or their matches viewed with asterisks, the only advantage that a player should have is A) racial or B) Map or C) Matchup. That said, Great event, had a blast. TY in the first match looked like a much worse player then he is. Very confusing play. Thanks to the hosts for hosting. | ||
|
tigon_ridge
482 Posts
On July 02 2019 17:08 AttackZerg wrote: Bias note - new fan of Serral. I dislike the +1 map in the finals. I think regardless of how many paths to the finals, once there, the players have earned their place and as such deserve an even match. I don't buy the "losers should be punished" or the converse logic. Serral, like all the other players, had the safety net of the losers bracket if he lost match ups to a certain point. The safety net of the losers bracket is supposed to give good players a second shot and to reduce randomness. Instead of +1 in a bo7, which is a huge advantage, winner of the winners bracket, should get 25% of the prize fund. Reward it with cash. Making pro gamers play handicapped matches is unfair and unsportsmen-like. This time it worked to a player I admires advantage, and I am still against it. The current reward for the winners bracket - less games, is already enough without adding a cash bonus. Please consider changing the system. Serral or TY or whoever else, do not deserve to have their result besmirched or their matches viewed with asterisks, the only advantage that a player should have is A) racial or B) Map or C) Matchup. That said, Great event, had a blast. TY in the first match looked like a much worse player then he is. Very confusing play. Thanks to the hosts for hosting. Okay, so you either didn't read my post, or didn't understand it. So let me break it down further for you. The +1 "advantage" isn't really to punish the guy from the loser's bracket, or handicap him. The +1 is just to ensure that the winner of the winners bracket doesn't get screwed over, since everybody in the tournament except him was given a second chance at winning 1st place. He himself doesn't get that luxury. If anything, +1 may be unfair because it's not enough compensation! In the past (WoL days), the guy who crawls back from the losers bracket would have to win 2 series in the grand final to win the tournament; because now even the winner of the winners bracket gets to have his 2nd chance. In this format, everyone gets their 2nd chance. If things went your way, Serral wouldn't win the tournament despite having a 6-5 score against TY; and what would TY have to show for that discrepancy? Oh, he defeated the 3rd placer. How would that demonstrate that he outperformed Serral??? | ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7579 Posts
I read each and every post in this thread before providing my opinion. You may disagree with me but our disagreement is not from my failure to understand the reasoning for the system. A match is a finite thing. A best of 7 should involve 4 wins and a winner declared. I am willing to entertain winner bracket advantages, such as map preference or order, or extra pay but I will never agree with Ghost or Fake games in a bo7. Take a softer tone. I provided way clearer advocacy for my opinion without being a .... smart guy? You live in a world where the winners bracket gets a back rub. That isn't the way it has always been and it isn't the way it needs to be. Chill yo. You didn't make any good, new or simplified versions of your argument in your second attempt to reach me. I am not convinced. Bo7 should be first to 4. Your ghost game shit is wack. And back to my original point - great event, had a blast, my dude won. Fake games, Ghost games are fake news or send me the replay from game 1 of the finals please. | ||
|
Majick
416 Posts
On July 02 2019 18:46 AttackZerg wrote: I do not agree with how this sport has incorporated this system in the past and I am against it now and will be in the future. I read each and every post in this thread before providing my opinion. You may disagree with me but our disagreement is not from my failure to understand the reasoning for the system. A match is a finite thing. A best of 7 should involve 4 wins and a winner declared. I am willing to entertain winner bracket advantages, such as map preference or order, or extra pay but I will never agree with Ghost or Fake games in a bo7. Take a softer tone. I provided way clearer advocacy for my opinion without being a .... smart guy? You live in a world where the winners bracket gets a back rub. That isn't the way it has always been and it isn't the way it needs to be. Chill yo. You didn't make any good, new or simplified versions of your argument in your second attempt to reach me. I am not convinced. Bo7 should be first to 4. Your ghost game shit is wack. And back to my original point - great event, had a blast, my dude won. Fake games, Ghost games are fake news or send me the replay from game 1 of the finals please. The first game of the grand final was basically the the winners bracket final. How limited are you to not grasp this? If you say that a match is a finite thing then TY should never get a second chance vs Serral as he already lost a series... | ||
|
UnLarva
458 Posts
TY is bigger hero there than Serral for being capable to really crack Serral to make it very close. That said, +1 map is BS reward for the final if other guy have chance to repeat attempt. Think it that way. You can lose BO5 match in playoffs (even intentionally) to ensure you need make only one map come back in the finals of BO7. Serral should do that every time he see it fitting considering players sent already to loser bracket. 1 map is nothing for the chance to be able to get 2nd chance. Serral managed to get his worst enemies obliterated by outplaying them from the winner bracket. Luckily it was TY who was the primary tool. In other scenarios its easy to see that Serral could voluntarily lose a winner bracket spot for making it to Finals. Thats it where it sucks. Best players have incentive to lose a playoffs match in certain scenarios. +3 Maps in B07 would make and do better. It should never be beneficial to lose the match in a winner bracket. | ||
|
DSh1
292 Posts
Double elimination is better than single elimination in my opinion and +1 is also better than a second series. | ||
|
HolydaKing
21254 Posts
I think the way HSC did it this time is the best way possible. | ||
|
UnLarva
458 Posts
On July 02 2019 21:05 DSh1 wrote: It's okay. Winning semi-finals still is (much) better than losing. Nobody would intentionally drop a game to play the 3rd place guy. No way losing is better than winning as the poster above me claims. Double elimination is better than single elimination in my opinion and +1 is also better than a second series. 'Poster above' just said that "It should never be beneficial to lose in winner bracket" and that to ensure it would be better to value Winner pracket winner (guy who actually won all of his/hers matches) until The Final more than +1 map. Thats what I said. TY would've been worthy to win this one. Thats said too. | ||
|
tigon_ridge
482 Posts
On July 02 2019 18:46 AttackZerg wrote: I do not agree with how this sport has incorporated this system in the past and I am against it now and will be in the future. I read each and every post in this thread before providing my opinion. You may disagree with me but our disagreement is not from my failure to understand the reasoning for the system. A match is a finite thing. A best of 7 should involve 4 wins and a winner declared. I am willing to entertain winner bracket advantages, such as map preference or order, or extra pay but I will never agree with Ghost or Fake games in a bo7. Take a softer tone. I provided way clearer advocacy for my opinion without being a .... smart guy? You live in a world where the winners bracket gets a back rub. That isn't the way it has always been and it isn't the way it needs to be. Chill yo. You didn't make any good, new or simplified versions of your argument in your second attempt to reach me. I am not convinced. Bo7 should be first to 4. Your ghost game shit is wack. And back to my original point - great event, had a blast, my dude won. Fake games, Ghost games are fake news or send me the replay from game 1 of the finals please. The concept of a tournament is to pit players together, under fair rules that apply equally to all participants, in order to determine who the best performers are, as accurately as possible. Suggesting to monetarily compensate the upper bracket winner, who was unfairly treated by a flawed tournament format, while of good intention is nothing more than offering apology money, or "Hey, we feel bad for robbing you of your fair chance for taking 1st prize, (and in this case you proven that you're better than the official crowned victor), but here, have some money." An advantage in having map decision is peanuts in compensation (imo). "A best of 7 should involve 4 wins and a winner declared." Except this isn't a normal Bo7, nor should it be. There is absolutely no reason why player B should be crowned the victor over player A, when player A is so blatantly handicapped by having no 2nd chance which player B enjoyed. The problem is that you are perceiving the +1 as the organizers having decided a real game was won, when really it should just be considered as merely a placeholder value. I would agree that the +1 score can be confusing for those unfamiliar with the tournament format, as it suggests the winners-bracket player won more games than he actually did. In my opinion, the +1 should be left out, and the match win should simply be awarded to the winners-bracket player if he wins 3 games, or the lower bracket player if he wins 4 games, and also NOT call it a Bo7. (Perhaps add an asterisk.) If fairness was strictly adhered to, we wouldn't have any losers bracket, provided that the players were properly seated, so that a top elite player doesn't get knocked out of the tournament in the Ro8 because he was unluckily placed against the eventually tournament winner. The reason why we have a losers bracket is that we also want to have the additional factor of accuracy of measuring relative skill, to prevent the suspicions of "player X won due to a fluke of circumstances," or "player Y should've placed much higher but got really unlucky." Now I acknowledge the argument that the losers bracket player oftens has to slug his way back to the top, having to win many more matches. However, these matches are all against players that are by default lower in standing than the winners bracket finalist. Now the fact these players all have a chance at taking a series even off of the supposed best player in the tournament, doesn't make it a probable occurrence, and no tournament can prevent a weaker player from defeating a stronger player. So, the fact that the lower bracket winner has beaten so many of them should not have any bearing on his merit aside from the fact that he'd earned his right to challenge the upper bracket winner. Stripping away the best-performing winners bracket player's critical 2nd chance without just compensation is absolutely the worst possible scenario. Consoling him with money is insulting, and offering arbitrary advantages may work if they're enough, but that's largely a subjective decision, just as the +1 placeholder was a subjectively arrived upon decision. Map decisions alone is nowhere near enough, but that is also just my subjective opinion, as no one has quantified the statistical advantage of being able to dictate what maps and their order are to be played. | ||
|
UnLarva
458 Posts
On July 02 2019 21:16 tigon_ridge wrote: The concept of a tournament is to pit players together, under fair rules that apply equally to all participants, in order to determine who the best performers are, as accurately as possible. Suggesting to monetarily compensate the upper bracket winner, who was unfairly treated by a flawed tournament format, while of good intention is nothing more than offering apology money, or "Hey, we feel bad for robbing you of your fair chance for taking 1st prize, (and in this case you proven that you're better than the official crowned victor), but here, have some money." An advantage in having map decision is peanuts in compensation (imo). "A best of 7 should involve 4 wins and a winner declared." Except this isn't a normal Bo7, nor should it be. There is absolutely no reason why player B should be crowned the victor over player A, when player A is so blatantly handicapped by having no 2nd chance which player B enjoyed. The problem is that you are perceiving the +1 as the organizers having decided a real game was won, when really it should just be considered as merely a placeholder value. I would agree that the +1 score can be confusing for those unfamiliar with the tournament format, as it suggests the winners-bracket player won more games than he actually did. In my opinion, the +1 should be left out, and the match win should simply be awarded to the winners-bracket player if he wins 3 games, or the lower bracket player if he wins 4 games, and also NOT call it a Bo7. (Perhaps add an asterisk.) If fairness was strictly adhered to, we wouldn't have any losers bracket, provided that the players were properly seated, so that a top elite player doesn't get knocked out of the tournament in the Ro8 because he was unluckily placed against the eventually tournament winner. The reason why we have a losers bracket is that we also want to have the additional factor of accuracy of measuring relative skill, to prevent the suspicions of "player X won due to a fluke of circumstances," or "player Y should've placed much higher but got really unlucky." Now I acknowledge the argument that the losers bracket player oftens has to slug his way back to the top, having to win many more matches. However, these matches are all against players that are by default lower in standing than the winners bracket finalist. Now the fact these players all have a chance at taking a series even off of the supposed best player in the tournament, doesn't make it a probable occurrence, and no tournament can prevent a weaker player from defeating a stronger player. So, the fact that the lower bracket winner has beaten so many of them should not have any bearing on his merit aside from the fact that he'd earned his right to challenge the upper bracket winner. Stripping away the best-performing winners bracket player's critical 2nd chance without just compensation is absolutely the worst possible scenario. Consoling him with money is insulting, and offering arbitrary advantages may work if they're enough, but that's largely a subjective decision, just as the +1 placeholder was a subjectively arrived upon decision. Map decisions alone is nowhere near enough, but that is also just my subjective opinion, as no one has quantified the statistical advantage of being able to dictate what maps and their order are to be played. Wisdom. As it is. | ||
|
Slydie
1966 Posts
On July 02 2019 12:39 meorcmespam wrote: This kid is just phenomenal. This is arguably the best run anyone has had over a years time. I'd love to see him try GSL just once I hope he doesn't. The top Koreans are too savvy on their own turf and in a format they know very well, including extremely specific preparation. I would like to not risk the disappointment. Maru is the opposite, as he thrives in the prep-heavy GSL format but not so much in Weekend tournaments with more games and opponents in a shorter timeframe. | ||
|
Xain0n
Italy3963 Posts
On July 02 2019 22:49 Slydie wrote: I hope he doesn't. The top Koreans are too savvy on their own turf and in a format they know very well, including extremely specific preparation. I would like to not risk the disappointment. Maru is the opposite, as he thrives in the prep-heavy GSL format but not so much in Weekend tournaments with more games and opponents in a shorter timeframe. I hope instead he does multiple times, it's good to see Serral tested. The format will be new for him but I would be extremely surprised to see him perform poorly; ofc, he could not win, but that's a different story. | ||
|
UnLarva
458 Posts
The Final would be then fair, clean, plain BO7, if The winner is the loser. Otherwise it would be the defense of that +1 for the Winner. (If being 2nd, then +/- 0 for the the Winner of the Winner Bracket). Tired as hell they would be, but...  From the start it would be clear that you can fight for your win, even if tired as fuck. | ||
|
UnLarva
458 Posts
 Serral! Kick their arses, be pleased! | ||
|
D-light
Finland7364 Posts
On July 02 2019 06:01 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: that is true, i wasn't looking at the months of the events. wonder why the summer ones aren't as popular. In addition to people having other things to do, the prize pools have been half of the winter ones the last few years, while the player line-ups have pretty much always been clearly better at the end of the year editions. When it comes to the difference between this HSC and the last one there were the additional differences of Serral riding the recent Blizzcon hypetrain, not having Incontrol there, delays with internet issues, and maybe having the wacky Mexican theme. Also not sure if the additional streams did better last time with probably having better variety of games and casters? | ||
| ||
