|
Bisutopia18736 Posts
On May 13 2020 07:33 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2020 03:47 BisuDagger wrote:On May 13 2020 03:10 Elentos wrote:On May 13 2020 02:15 arcane1129 wrote:On May 13 2020 01:59 Liquid`TLO wrote:On May 13 2020 01:34 Ej_ wrote:On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote:
I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket.
Most pros prefer an even fight for the title. Need an opinion on the HSC format then (1 map up in bo7)! To me, it always seemed the reasonable middle-ground between winner advantage and time-consrtraint affected doubl series. perosnally that leave a bitter taste if the finals are decided 4-3 with the winner bracket player winning. To me the finals is the ultimate test between 2 players. It's kind of disappointing to know the winner really just won by drawing 3-3. The disadvantage having to show way more of your strategies as well as general fatigue from playing a lot more series is underplayed by a lot of people here. (fatigue in the case of TSL not really being case because of the lengthy format but SC2 on the highest level requires way more energy than some people realize.) I agree that a 3-3 final is lame, but so is the potential for player A to beat player B in winner's finals 3-0 and then lose to player B 3-2 in grands. This would mean they both only lost 1 set (to each other) but the player that went 5-3 head to head lost. What are your feelings on Bo5 set 1 and bo3 set 2 (if needed) for grands? You can't plan a tournament around every possible result though. Like taking the format you mentioned, what if player B loses 2-3 initially, then wins 3-0 in the grand finals and then player A wins 2-1 in the extra bo3? "You may have lost the grand finals 2-4 overall player A, but congratulations, you're the champ anyway." is the lamest outcome. Not to mention it's a much less fair format than a Bo7 with 1 game advantage - A can win the finals by winning 2, 3 or 4 maps, B always needs to win 5. I'd like to see a Bo7 format tested where the winner bracket player has the right to change the map order to some degree (like the 1st seed in GSL group selections can switch 2 players). Create favorable conditions without outright handing them the wins. I like the map advantage idea too. Even if each player picks every other map, if the winner picks first in a full series they also get to pick the ace map too. It's very similar to home court advantage in the NBA. You're still playing on the same 7 maps though. Whereas in the NBA you'll play more games on your home court if all games are played. Having more control over the order of the maps is more a psychological advantage than anything else.
Maybe a repeated map by choice might work.
|
On May 13 2020 07:56 brickrd wrote:
these arguments are funny because frankly even bo7 is statistically not that strong of an indicator of the better player. the only "fair" way would be having every series be a bo49 or something like that, all played on one map. but as people have pointed out for years, tournaments and playoffs aren't about fairness or accuracy, they're about entertainment and drama. players should stfu and win games, fans should stfu and watch
How is that in the slightest relevant? Fairness and being a strong indicator of who the best player is aren't the same thing.
|
Earlier on in the thread, I suggested that the Winner Bracket winner should have a slight map pick advantage, and propose map picking order to be A-B-A-B-A-B-A. The theory is they will be able to choose the last map which will be most comfortable for them in the decider.
However, reading the thread further, I like some of the other suggestions. My preferred one:
- Winner Bracket vetoes 1 map and gets to choose a repeat map, which is played on game7.
I think the Winner Bracket deserves some sort of advantage but we don't want to detract from the viewer experience. I don't think this repeat map affects viewers at all - if it gets to g7, it will be a great viewer experience!
|
On May 13 2020 13:54 Azzur wrote:
Earlier on in the thread, I suggested that the Winner Bracket winner should have a slight map pick advantage, and propose map picking order to be A-B-A-B-A-B-A. The theory is they will be able to choose the last map which will be most comfortable for them in the decider.
However, reading the thread further, I like some of the other suggestions. My preferred one:
- Winner Bracket vetoes 1 map and gets to choose a repeat map, which is played on game7.
I think the Winner Bracket deserves some sort of advantage but we don't want to detract from the viewer experience. I don't think this repeat map affects viewers at all - if it gets to g7, it will be a great viewer experience!
That sounds very... variable. Let's say you have INno vs Clem as the finals. The map pick advantage hardly matters. Let's say you have INno vs Serral as the finals. Well good luck Serral, games 1 and 7 are on Purity and Industry.
|
Germany315 Posts
On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote:
I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket.
Most pros prefer an even fight for the title.
I know several Pros that really dislike the no-advantage you seem to like ...
|
On May 13 2020 15:11 hjpalpha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote:
I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket.
Most pros prefer an even fight for the title. I know several Pros that really dislike the no-advantage you seem to like ...
I know several Pros that really like the no-advantage you seem to dislike ...
|
On May 13 2020 14:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2020 13:54 Azzur wrote:
Earlier on in the thread, I suggested that the Winner Bracket winner should have a slight map pick advantage, and propose map picking order to be A-B-A-B-A-B-A. The theory is they will be able to choose the last map which will be most comfortable for them in the decider.
However, reading the thread further, I like some of the other suggestions. My preferred one:
- Winner Bracket vetoes 1 map and gets to choose a repeat map, which is played on game7.
I think the Winner Bracket deserves some sort of advantage but we don't want to detract from the viewer experience. I don't think this repeat map affects viewers at all - if it gets to g7, it will be a great viewer experience! That sounds very... variable. Let's say you have INno vs Clem as the finals. The map pick advantage hardly matters. Let's say you have INno vs Serral as the finals. Well good luck Serral, games 1 and 7 are on Purity and Industry.
Well, there is no such thing as an "ideal" solution since there are competing factors of fairness vs viewer experience.
I think most ppl will agree that the Winner Bracket deserves an advantage, and I think that most ppl will also agree that this advantage should not detract from the viewer experience.
If it's Inno vs Clem, the map picks will allow Inno to have a more comfortable match - the advantage may hardly matter but it's still an advantage regardless?
If Inno vs Serral, even though g1 and g7 is on Purity and Industry, Serral still can win those games? Better than having Inno starting with 1-0 or Serral having to win the Grand final (bo7) and then another match?
And you mention "variable" - I point out that having a random draw is variable already as some players have a preferred matchup, maps, etc.
|
On May 13 2020 16:05 Azzur wrote:
If Inno vs Serral, even though g1 and g7 is on Purity and Industry, Serral still can win those games?
Yeah I don't know.
|
Seems like a lot of people have their own view or fairness and try to apply it without explaining which part it is that they are referring to. That doesn't work well when communicating with people that have a different view.
Is it fair that everyone is following the same rules? If so, then there is nothing to complain about.
Should we adhere to literal meanings of words? Double eliminatiin means that you need to lose twice to be out of the tournament. There needs to be a second set played if the winner's bracket finalist loses in the finals.
Also, we need to complain about the tie rules in best of series since the standard rules is that a map tie leads to a replay of that map. This would mean that the players are playing more games than the "best of" name say that they play. If you dislike that DE isn't taken literally, why aren't you equally upset that BO isn't taken literally? In order to be fair, you also need to be consistent.
Should the rules affect everybody equally? The invited players had an advantage before the tournament started. The seeding system also works on things that happened before the tournament. Is that fair? At least winning all games until the grand finals gives advantage based on results in this tournament - et less fatigue, fewer strategies shown, time to prepare while the "semi finalists" are playing.
A tournament is a time efficient and entertaining way of showing great athletes. However, it is not a great way of determining who is best. The results lack validity and reliability because the sample size is too small and most factors are not even included. The athletes are only showing their skills vs a small set of opponents instead of vs everyone, and they have very limited amount of tries to show their skills.
If you are using fairness to mean that the best player should win, another format is required.
We have people saying that some players dislike advantages and others disliking a lack of advantages, so fairness for the well being of the players' mind is not applicable as it is subjective.
I can find no way for fairness to mean that the winner's bracket finalist should get another advantage than being included in the double elimination rule, excluding if other tournaments should also be heavily criticized for their unfairness. Anyrhing else is arbitrary and is not part of "fairness".
Are you even arguing fairness?
Remember that this is showbiz.
This is not necessary for survival, this is not educational, this is not producing anything lasting. This is purely for joy in the moment.
|
On May 14 2020 22:50 Drfilip wrote:
Seems like a lot of people have their own view or fairness and try to apply it without explaining which part it is that they are referring to. That doesn't work well when communicating with people that have a different view.
Is it fair that everyone is following the same rules? If so, then there is nothing to complain about.
Should we adhere to literal meanings of words? Double eliminatiin means that you need to lose twice to be out of the tournament. There needs to be a second set played if the winner's bracket finalist loses in the finals.
Also, we need to complain about the tie rules in best of series since the standard rules is that a map tie leads to a replay of that map. This would mean that the players are playing more games than the "best of" name say that they play. If you dislike that DE isn't taken literally, why aren't you equally upset that BO isn't taken literally? In order to be fair, you also need to be consistent.
Should the rules affect everybody equally? The invited players had an advantage before the tournament started. The seeding system also works on things that happened before the tournament. Is that fair? At least winning all games until the grand finals gives advantage based on results in this tournament - et less fatigue, fewer strategies shown, time to prepare while the "semi finalists" are playing.
A tournament is a time efficient and entertaining way of showing great athletes. However, it is not a great way of determining who is best. The results lack validity and reliability because the sample size is too small and most factors are not even included. The athletes are only showing their skills vs a small set of opponents instead of vs everyone, and they have very limited amount of tries to show their skills.
If you are using fairness to mean that the best player should win, another format is required.
We have people saying that some players dislike advantages and others disliking a lack of advantages, so fairness for the well being of the players' mind is not applicable as it is subjective.
I can find no way for fairness to mean that the winner's bracket finalist should get another advantage than being included in the double elimination rule, excluding if other tournaments should also be heavily criticized for their unfairness. Anyrhing else is arbitrary and is not part of "fairness".
Are you even arguing fairness?
Remember that this is showbiz.
This is not necessary for survival, this is not educational, this is not producing anything lasting. This is purely for joy in the moment.
Then who cares about competition integrity, this is just "showbiz".
|
On May 14 2020 22:54 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 22:50 Drfilip wrote:
Seems like a lot of people have their own view or fairness and try to apply it without explaining which part it is that they are referring to. That doesn't work well when communicating with people that have a different view.
Is it fair that everyone is following the same rules? If so, then there is nothing to complain about.
Should we adhere to literal meanings of words? Double eliminatiin means that you need to lose twice to be out of the tournament. There needs to be a second set played if the winner's bracket finalist loses in the finals.
Also, we need to complain about the tie rules in best of series since the standard rules is that a map tie leads to a replay of that map. This would mean that the players are playing more games than the "best of" name say that they play. If you dislike that DE isn't taken literally, why aren't you equally upset that BO isn't taken literally? In order to be fair, you also need to be consistent.
Should the rules affect everybody equally? The invited players had an advantage before the tournament started. The seeding system also works on things that happened before the tournament. Is that fair? At least winning all games until the grand finals gives advantage based on results in this tournament - et less fatigue, fewer strategies shown, time to prepare while the "semi finalists" are playing.
A tournament is a time efficient and entertaining way of showing great athletes. However, it is not a great way of determining who is best. The results lack validity and reliability because the sample size is too small and most factors are not even included. The athletes are only showing their skills vs a small set of opponents instead of vs everyone, and they have very limited amount of tries to show their skills.
If you are using fairness to mean that the best player should win, another format is required.
We have people saying that some players dislike advantages and others disliking a lack of advantages, so fairness for the well being of the players' mind is not applicable as it is subjective.
I can find no way for fairness to mean that the winner's bracket finalist should get another advantage than being included in the double elimination rule, excluding if other tournaments should also be heavily criticized for their unfairness. Anyrhing else is arbitrary and is not part of "fairness".
Are you even arguing fairness?
Remember that this is showbiz.
This is not necessary for survival, this is not educational, this is not producing anything lasting. This is purely for joy in the moment. Then who cares about competition integrity, this is just "showbiz".
Competitive integrity is integral to this part of show business. We need rules and structure. We need the core, that players are vying for good placememts and try their best -in game, mind you- to win.
I don't understand why you would sidestep that much, going past all that text and get hung up on an semi-related comment at the end. I only included that because I read a lot of comments about making things so that players get equal opportunity or to make the best player win and other stuff in the same general spirit, neglecting that they had biased views as consumers and their personal tastes. These were arguments that put on a mirage of logic.
|
On May 14 2020 22:50 Drfilip wrote:
Seems like a lot of people have their own view or fairness and try to apply it without explaining which part it is that they are referring to. That doesn't work well when communicating with people that have a different view.
Is it fair that everyone is following the same rules? If so, then there is nothing to complain about.
Should we adhere to literal meanings of words? Double eliminatiin means that you need to lose twice to be out of the tournament. There needs to be a second set played if the winner's bracket finalist loses in the finals.
Also, we need to complain about the tie rules in best of series since the standard rules is that a map tie leads to a replay of that map. This would mean that the players are playing more games than the "best of" name say that they play. If you dislike that DE isn't taken literally, why aren't you equally upset that BO isn't taken literally? In order to be fair, you also need to be consistent.
Should the rules affect everybody equally? The invited players had an advantage before the tournament started. The seeding system also works on things that happened before the tournament. Is that fair? At least winning all games until the grand finals gives advantage based on results in this tournament - et less fatigue, fewer strategies shown, time to prepare while the "semi finalists" are playing.
A tournament is a time efficient and entertaining way of showing great athletes. However, it is not a great way of determining who is best. The results lack validity and reliability because the sample size is too small and most factors are not even included. The athletes are only showing their skills vs a small set of opponents instead of vs everyone, and they have very limited amount of tries to show their skills.
If you are using fairness to mean that the best player should win, another format is required.
We have people saying that some players dislike advantages and others disliking a lack of advantages, so fairness for the well being of the players' mind is not applicable as it is subjective.
I can find no way for fairness to mean that the winner's bracket finalist should get another advantage than being included in the double elimination rule, excluding if other tournaments should also be heavily criticized for their unfairness. Anyrhing else is arbitrary and is not part of "fairness".
Are you even arguing fairness?
Remember that this is showbiz.
This is not necessary for survival, this is not educational, this is not producing anything lasting. This is purely for joy in the moment.
From what I understand of what you're saying, you believe that the viewer experience or "showbiz" is the most important aspect of a tournament. From your post, I couldn't determine what you believe to be the "correct" solution - my reading of your post seem to indicate that you believe the Grand Final current rules is the best solution (bo7 finals without any advantage whatsoever).
However, if you follow some of the ideas out there (including mine), where we suggested giving the Winner Bracket a map pick advantage. I argue that a map pick advantage won't detract much (if at all) from the viewer experience.
I'm sure there are other good ideas out there as well where the Winner Bracket can be given some kind of advantage without affecting the "showbiz".
This lies my point, we should be trying to work out such ideas rather than debate fairness vs showbiz.
|
|
|
Will the matches all be run one at a time? Would hate to have to choose which of my favorites to watch
|
|
|
Also is loser round 1 still Bo3 or Bo5? The official bracket and the prediction thread have all the losers' rounds as Bo5, but the description here says Bo3
|
Is Loser's Round 1 Bo3 or Bo5? Seems Bo5 on Liquipedia
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
