Serral wins HomeStory Cup 19 - Page 7

On July 02 2019 20:02 Majick wrote:


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...

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.

On July 03 2019 04:28 Ej_ wrote:

Not your tournament, none of your bees wax. Imaginated 2 decades of DE brackets in Starcraft or not.

On July 03 2019 04:53 Ej_ wrote:


Also, if you, as a native speaker, feel the need to tell me to use "correct English", then at least spell "than" properly.

On July 03 2019 05:06 Durnuu wrote:

You made it again in your previous post btw.

On July 03 2019 04:36 AttackZerg wrote:



You provided no new points. You are arguing for something that no other sport that is credible in the world does.

Your argument is "Well we must stack the deck in the finals to make it fair".

Thank you for pulling back from your "I'm so smart tone" but unfortunately you added more words with less content.

Why do your sc2 groupies feel the need to bandwagon. I pointed out the merits to my argument. The entire tournament world operates closer to my ideas then yours.

Only this sport has such a moronic "+1 in the finals advantage".

Nobody else does that because it literally ruins the finals.

The finals, that goal of a tournament is to produce a finals. That's it. The finals of the tournament were champions are made.

The finals of this tournament ended with 3/3. That is stupid.

I made it clear that I am not susceptible to arguments that "This is the best way".

To the polish guy who said "can't get this through your head"

Listen Mr. Second language. Holding a separate opinion doesn't make someone stupid.

I never asked for your or anyone else opinion. I stated mine. Fully aware of yours.
Yours is the way the tournament was run and why the finals were a sad affair with 6 games played.

If you want to imply that someone is stupid .... it is probably the people in a niche sport adding fake games in order to falsely quantify the difference between winners and losers brackets.

If you want to go that route .... You would have to be a real barnacle of a person to support back rubs for the winners bracket at the cost of a fair finals.



Also your argument starts off stupid, There is a losers bracket for every round but the finals. Penalizing someone for having a worse earlier tournament or handicapping the finals is unjustifiable.

On July 03 2019 05:40 tigon_ridge wrote:


SC2 bandwagon groupies? This sport? One tournament format and the people who defend it disagree with your (much less popular by far, trust me) opinion, and you associate it with an entire esport? Right after criticizing me for my condescension (it was justified btw), you decide to one-up me on it, except even directing your negative judgment toward entire swaths of people. You're showing your lack of acuity more and more. Being respectful to people like you isn't warranted.

"Your argument is "Well we must stack the deck in the finals to make it fair"."

Yes. Yes, it is. You advocated it as well, with your "maps order decision" suggestion. And your argument is that it's fine to stack the deck against the most consistent winner, as long as you pay him out. You also failed to address my argument that simply going through losers bracket is not enough to justify having only a single series rematch against the true winner of the single-elimination format, without some additional handicap. If the tournament was a purely single-eliminations format (which is the case for EVERY bigger premier SC2 tournament), the tournament would've ended after the first Serral v TY series, albeit it would be a Bo7 instead of Bo5, and the winner would've been Serral. Merely defeating the 3RD place holder (by definition, A LOSER two rungs below the winner) is nowhere near enough justification for being able to have a no-strings-attached single series rematch with the winner. If you still don't understand this logic by now, I'll just declare you utterly hopeless.

"There is a losers bracket for every round but the finals." Yes, that's why it's unfair for the single-elimination winner...how do you not understand that???

"Penalizing someone for having a worse earlier tournament or handicapping the finals is unjustifiable." NO. He simply hasn't earned a no-strings-attached match against the single-elimination winner is the argument.

On July 03 2019 06:07 AttackZerg wrote:



You are repeating your same points in an ever more stupid manner.
I did not agree with you. I said " I would entertain the idea" that is not agreement.

3 people are not swaths.

This sport has catered to fanboys and thus has some gabage features such as unbalanced finals.
I spoke against it.

The idea did not come from top players. It came from over catering to fans.

You were an ass, I responded to you like you were one. And now it is my lack of acuity that has earned me so many words and so little respect.

I got it. You are right. Will that make you stop humping a dead horse.

Your words have all been wasted. I said from the beginning that I am against the format full stop.

You have done nothing to move the agenda except to go out of your way to provoke a fight and then cry about the tone, after I asked you to first stop being a dick.

My first post had nothing to do with you.
My second did.
You write your essays. Nobody has changed their mind.
You did help lower the quality of the thread.

Keep being smart. Doesn't make you right. Doesn't make me wrong.

You did engage in discussion just a "oh my god I'm right wtf guy".

Gj. You are the king of the thread.

Still fucking stupid format.i