|
Edit: Added a summary of the responses at the end.
MLG does not use a standard double-elimination bracket. Of course, that doesn't, on its own, mean that it's bad. Unfortunately, I think it is. Here are the rules:
http://pro-circuit.mlgpro.com/pro-circuit/2010/washington-dc/starcraft-2-1v1/competition-format6. If Players are scheduled to play each other for a 2nd time in the Open Bracket, their Match will expand to a Best of 7, include the previous Match, and pick up where that Match left off. For example, if Player A beat Player B 2 Games to 0 in the Winners Bracket, the Best of 7 will resume with Game 3 and Player A leading 2 Games to 0. When the Match is resumed, the loser of the Winners Bracket Match must select the Map for the upcoming Game and only they may change their Race from the Races that were used in the last Game of the Winners Bracket Match. 7. If the Players scheduled to play each other in the Finals have not yet played against each other in the Open Bracket, an initial Match must be played. If the Player who came from the Winners Bracket wins the initial Match, they will win the Event. If the Player who came from the Losers Bracket wins the Match, a tiebreaking Match must be played. The winner of a tiebreaking Match will win the Event. Game 1 of the initial Match will be played on the Map that has been selected for Game 1 of the Finals. Game 1 of the tiebreaking Match will be played on the Map that has been selected for Game 1 of the Winners Bracket Finals. If the Players have already competed against each other on the Map that has been selected for Game 1 of the Winners Bracket Finals, the Player who came from the Winners Bracket will select the Map for Game 1 of the tiebreaking Match.
Two comments. The first is minor, and the second is major. First, I don't understand why rule 7 isn't just
- If the Players scheduled to play each other in the Finals have not yet played against each other in the Open Bracket, their Match will be a Best of 7, with an initial lead of 2 Games to 0 for the Player who came from the Winners Bracket.
At every other stage in the tournament, two bo3s between the same players turn into a single bo7. The only difference between this version of the rule and the official rule is that under the official rule, the player coming from winners can win two games and lose the grand finals (by going 1-2 in both bo3s). This cannot happen if the two players have played earlier in the tournament. I actually think that the official rule is the better rule to use (it's certainly the standard double-elimination rule), but it seems inconsistent with the way things work out in the rest of the tournament.
Second, and more important, I think rule 6 has less-than-ideal consequences. It means the following.
- In a match in losers, the player coming from winners has an advantage if the two players have met before, but does not have an advantage in any other situation.
It also means (unless I'm misunderstanding what happens in a grand final rematch, which is possible):
- If the grand finals are a rematch from earlier in the tournament (so that rule 7 does not kick in), then the player from winners has the same advantage that he or she would have had if the two players had met in a losers bracket match.
This in turn means that the player coming from winners can have less of an advantage than he or she would have in a normal double-elimination bracket:
- If the grand finals are a rematch and the earlier meeting ended 2-1, then the player coming from losers only has to win 3 games in order to win the grand finals, as opposed to needing to win two bo3s (4 games) in a normal double-elimination bracket. This is also an advantage over what a player coming from losers has to do if the two have not met previously (per rule 7).
I think these are silly differences to have from a normal double-elimination format, although I'm willing to be proved wrong if there's a good justification for them.
Summary: Minor comment: Rule 7 seems inconsistent with the other rules. Major comment: Rule 6 (a) gives the player coming from winners an advantage in every losers bracket match when the two players have met before but not in any other situation, and (b) will sometimes give the player coming from winners less of an advantage in the grand finals.
Edit: The main reasons in favor of MLG's system that have come out of the thread are (a) that it makes for more epic, grudge-y matches, and (b) that it makes you really need to beat your opponent (rather than just advancing with a 2-1 win after losing 0-2 to the same player earlier in the tournament, in which case you've won fewer games than your opponent has) in order to advance, and that the added luck factor is an acceptable cost for these results.
You might disagree with the last judgment. (I do, unsurprisingly.) But if you agree that it's an acceptable cost, then this does account for my second bullet point, and sort of the first (but rule 7 is inconsistent with reason (b) above). It doesn't address the third and fourth bullet points, though.
Again: I might be wrong about how the grand finals work when they're a rematch. I think it's just a single continuation bo7, but if that's not right, then those bullet points might be wrong, too.
|
For your first point, Just giving the WB player a 2-0 lead robs the LB player of the 2-1 that could occur from the Initial Match.
For your second bullet, this rewards players who make it further into the winner's bracket. It promotes winning, not losing, then winning.
For your third point, the first bullet is untrue. In the resulting Bo7, the WB player will have a 1 or 2 game lead. In other words, the WB only has to win two more games, while the LB player would have to win 3 or 4. If were just a Loser's Bracket match, it would be a straight up Bo3. The rule helps players that dominate in the winners bracket.
Basically, the MLG philosophy is that winning the first time (in winner's bracket) is good, and if you win the winner's bracket you should have an advantage.
|
Having had to re-read rule 7 a few times to make sure I got it....
I agree that Rule 7 is a but.. weird, but it's just as if they would assume the the winner went 2-0 against the loser.. which favors the player who dropped no matches. Seems kind of weird, but it seems kind of fair.
Rule 6 seems OK to me. Cause it's this, or you either create a situation where the previous winner has no advantage, which isn't "fair" either, really. And honestly, you're really looking at like 1 game of advantage either way.
|
On October 17 2010 06:35 Belac wrote:
For your first point, Just giving the WB player a 2-0 lead robs the LB player of the 2-1 that could occur from the Initial Match. True. But that is what happens in every other case when you have two bo3s between the same players under this system. (Edit: Again, I wasn't saying that I thought rule 7 was bad. It's a normal double-elimination rule, and so I think it's a good rule! I was just saying that I thought it was inconsistent.)
On October 17 2010 06:35 Belac wrote:
For your second bullet, this rewards players who make it further into the winner's bracket. It promotes winning, not losing, then winning. Only when you face someone you've faced before. It doesn't give anybody else an advantage for coming into a losers bracket match out of winners. That's what I think is silly; it gives you an advantage based on whether you've beaten your opponent earlier in the tournament, and I can't think of a good reason to do that. (Again, I'm open to suggestions! Seriously! That's not sarcasm!)
On October 17 2010 06:35 Belac wrote:
For your third point, the first bullet is untrue. In the resulting Bo7, the WB player will have a 1 or 2 game lead. In other words, the WB only has to win two more games, while the LB player would have to win 3 or 4. Which is the same thing that would happen if they had met in the losers bracket after their first match, instead of in grand finals. Which is what I said. This is where you made a mistake:
On October 17 2010 06:35 Belac wrote:
If were just a Loser's Bracket match, it would be a straight up Bo3. Not if they've met before, given rule 6.
On October 17 2010 06:35 Belac wrote:
The rule helps players that dominate in the winners bracket. No, it doesn't. In a normal double-elimination bracket, the player from LB has to win two bo3s, which requires winning 4 games. In this case, there is the chance that the LB player only has to win 3 games (as you said). That is, in the grand finals, rule 6 can actually make the LB player's job easier.
On October 17 2010 06:39 Utena wrote:
it's just as if they would assume the the winner went 2-0 against the loser.. Almost, but not quite: In a pair of bo3s, the WB player can win two games and lose the finals overall by going 1-2 in both bo3s. In a single bo7 with a 2-0 lead, that's impossible.
On October 17 2010 06:39 Utena wrote:
Rule 6 seems OK to me. Cause it's this, or you either create a situation where the previous winner has no advantage, which isn't "fair" either, really. And honestly, you're really looking at like 1 game of advantage either way. No, there's always an advantage for the WB player, of either 1 or 2 games. Except in grand finals, where the WB player either has no advantage or has a 1 game disadvantage. (In both cases, I mean advantage/disadvantage as compared to a normal double-elimination bracket, which is to say: as compared to what happens if the two players have not met earlier in the tournament.)
Edit: And a 1 game advantage is pretty huge when you're talking about the difference between needing to win 2 or 3, or 3 or 4 games, which is what we have here.
|
I actually lost a finals series for a different game due to these rules, and I was pretty pissed at the time. We had actually lost when the opponent won the same amount of games as we did, if i remember right.
|
On October 17 2010 06:41 iEchoic wrote:
I actually lost a finals series for a different game due to these rules, and I was pretty pissed at the time. We had actually lost when the opponent won the same amount of games as we did, if i remember right. Yeah, that's what seems shitty (and in need of a good reason that I can't think of) to me.
|
On October 17 2010 06:40 Pyrthas wrote:
That's what I think is silly; it gives you an advantage based on whether you've beaten your opponent earlier in the tournament, and I can't think of a good reason to do that. (Again, I'm open to suggestions! Seriously! That's not sarcasm!)
Thats the whole point. You've proven that you've been this player once.
Another thing to remember that two Bo3s is 6 games max, while a Bo7 is, well 7. Think of it as giving the initial winner more time to win two more games.
|
The rules are very, very stupid. Like, amazingly stupid.
I don't even understand how people can argue that the rules are fair. They just add even more luck into the brackets.
|
I was surprised when I heard about this and why they felt they needed to add these special "rules" to a double elimination bracket. I can only assume it was something meant for Halo that they ported over. As far as I know "Pure" Double Elimination brackets have been used for YEARS without any major issues or needing special rules.
The whole purpose of a Double Elimination bracket is suppose to give players a second-chance due to bad games or top players meeting each other early. The whole point of the Loser's bracket is everyone coming into it and being on neutral ground since the ONLY thing that's suppose to matter in Double Elimination Tournament are when you lose TWICE. Not who you play, when you play, or how much you beat them by.
The ONLY penalty that you should have when you enter the Loser's Bracket is that you obviously have to play more games to get to the Finals. The ONLY time someone is suppose to have an advantage in a "Pure" Double Elimination bracket is in the Finals match since it's obviously the Winner's Bracket Finalist(Undefeated) versus Loser's Bracket Finalist(Lost ONE match) so an advantage of some kind has to be given.
MLG needs to reevaluate this rule because an advantage shouldn't exist based solely if you get lucky or not meeting someone you previously defeated. Only advantage that should exist in a Double Elimination Tournament is the in the Final Match.
|
They copied the format from their World of Warcraft tournament which adopted the extended series format last season.
|
Standard double elim just makes things so much easier. 2 lost sets and you're out.
|
are these threads going to pop up every time MLG finals approach?
its double elim. You have to give consequences to the people that try to make it out of losers. If you've already been beaten by a player, you shouldn't get another chance. Double elimination gives you this chance, but with a hill to climb.
I think its fair. Rules are always fair if all parties know them going in. I don't think anyone can blame the rules instead of themselves for not winning this tournament.
|
On October 17 2010 06:54 Belac wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 06:40 Pyrthas wrote:
That's what I think is silly; it gives you an advantage based on whether you've beaten your opponent earlier in the tournament, and I can't think of a good reason to do that. (Again, I'm open to suggestions! Seriously! That's not sarcasm!) Thats the whole point. You've proven that you've been this player once. I realize that's the point. I am trying to say two (separate) things about it, though.
- I don't understand the reasoning behind giving someone an advantage when they've beaten their opponent before but not giving any other players from WB an advantage in LB matches. I realize that's what it's doing, but I don't see why it's good to have a system that does that. That is, I do not yet see why "you've beaten this player once" should mean "you get 1 or 2 more games to beat this player a second time."
- It actually backfires in the grand finals, where it can give an advantage to the person who lost before, rather than to the person who won, and absolutely cannot give an advantage to the person who won before. Basically, in the grand finals, it turns into "you've beaten this player once, but if you let the other player take 1 game off of you in your previous meeting, you actually have fewer chances to beat them now, even though you made it through the entire tournament undefeated."
|
On October 17 2010 07:00 arterian wrote:
They copied the format from their World of Warcraft tournament which adopted the extended series format last season.
No, they had this rule for 2-3 years, I lost because of it in like 2007.
|
On October 17 2010 07:01 mprs wrote:
are these threads going to pop up every time MLG finals approach?
its double elim. You have to give consequences to the people that try to make it out of losers. If you've already been beaten by a player, you shouldn't get another chance. Double elimination gives you this chance, but with a hill to climb.
I think its fair. Rules are always fair if all parties know them going in. I don't think anyone can blame the rules instead of themselves for not winning this tournament.
Either you lack reading comprehension, or you're just completely not addressing the qualms that people have with this format.
This ISNT just double elimination. I know what double elimination is. This is double elimination with a retarded twist that adds a "you can possibly get screwed over" factor.
|
On October 17 2010 07:01 mprs wrote:
are these threads going to pop up every time MLG finals approach? Maybe. Sorry. It was the first time I encountered it.
On October 17 2010 07:01 mprs wrote:
its double elim. You have to give consequences to the people that try to make it out of losers. If you've already been beaten by a player, you shouldn't get another chance. Double elimination gives you this chance, but with a hill to climb. By choosing to use a double-elimination format, you're already choosing to give people a second chance. That's the whole point of the format. So why do you get less of a chance when you happen to play someone for the second time?
Also, again, it reverses in the grand finals, as far as I can tell from the rules as they're written. If I'm confused, of course, I'm happy to be corrected.
|
I don't really see what's confusing you..
If I have played you before.. we continue our series, I was able to win the first 2, and I made it farther in the winner's bracket. This is how it works in MLG tournaments, all of their tournaments have a double elimination style to give players a second chance. Look at Select, he went in to losers bracket Winners rd 2, but now has battled back to play for a chance in the championship match.
The format is a little confusing at first, but once you watch a tournament or two or actually play in one, it makes a lot of sense. The winners bracket finalist plays against the losers bracket finalist, The winners bracket finalist only needs to win 1 series to take the tournament, since it would make the losers bracket finalist lose twice(double eliminated). The losers bracket finalist needs to win two series, one series putting the winners bracket finalist into the losers bracket finals, and one series to eliminate the winners bracket finalist.
This format is really good imo, and much better than single elimination, it gives you a second chance, and lets things like being bracket screwed not matter as much..
say the best player and the second best player, play first round. That best player will win, knocking second best player to losers.. that second best player can grind his way through losers all the way to the grand final and claim second place prize(which he is deserving of)...
Sure seeds help with this as well.. but not everyone is seeded, as they did not attend the first event.. the seeds just reward players for consistent results and give you an easier bracket.
|
This rule is just ridiculous... so confusing
Winners ro8?? What? Losers bracket ro4??? o.m.f.g. -.-;
|
On October 17 2010 07:01 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:00 arterian wrote:
They copied the format from their World of Warcraft tournament which adopted the extended series format last season. No, they had this rule for 2-3 years, I lost because of it in like 2007. What did you play in?
|
On October 17 2010 07:04 BraveGhost wrote:
I don't really see what's confusing you.. Nobody is confused about the format. I am not asking what the rules are, but why they are this way instead of normal double-elimination rules. Edit: With a little irritation, I might suggest that you reread the OP.
Here's a summary: It's double-elimination plus "you need to win more games if you rematch someone you lost to before unless you rematch them in the grand finals (then maybe you actually need to win fewer)." My question: Why add that extra stuff?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
