DreamHack Summer 2013 Finnish Qual.
HLTV Ip's
-
(16)
(8)
(20)
(144)
(21)
(40)
(14)
(65)
(54)
(114)
(65)
(75)
(31)
(6)
(2)
(12)
(23)
(12)
(4)
(1)
(3)
(16)
(0)
(4)
(93)
-
-
-
deStrO
pRopaaNS
FACEIT
moxierawr
tweeday
eSportEurope
carn
Umeroff
can't agree with lurppis' new match system
I can't agree with lurppis' new match system especially in group stage.
Let's use gamegune as an example.
In group A, there is no doubt with the 1st place, fnatic.
And Delta won twice against kick and got 2nd place in that gourp is also ok.
But now I am gonna use group B as an example.
No doubt with navi got the 1st place.
But in my opinion, it's not fair for x6tence which got a score 1-1 against Karont3.
So my point is, in group stage when two teams trying to fight for the 2nd place should win 2 map in order to get into next stage.
So it's more like a BO3 for these two teams, if one team won the first two games, there is no need for the 3rd map. However, if they got a even score, 1-1, then there should have a 3rd map to decide which team win the 2nd place.
Just a suggestion for lurppis, hope to hear from u soon
Let's use gamegune as an example.
In group A, there is no doubt with the 1st place, fnatic.
And Delta won twice against kick and got 2nd place in that gourp is also ok.
But now I am gonna use group B as an example.
No doubt with navi got the 1st place.
But in my opinion, it's not fair for x6tence which got a score 1-1 against Karont3.
So my point is, in group stage when two teams trying to fight for the 2nd place should win 2 map in order to get into next stage.
So it's more like a BO3 for these two teams, if one team won the first two games, there is no need for the 3rd map. However, if they got a even score, 1-1, then there should have a 3rd map to decide which team win the 2nd place.
Just a suggestion for lurppis, hope to hear from u soon
Its hard to make the perfect rules , there are always some flows , but imo lurppis ones are pretty decent.
2012-07-27 07:57:59
agree with u
2012-07-27 07:58:13
this system is only fair to four teams in the same level.
2012-07-27 08:00:52
Agree with that ! Imo it's a great system, but obviously not for every events
2012-07-27 09:45:07
event*
2012-07-27 10:51:28
I would be proud if it was my only mistake :(
2012-07-27 10:57:24
how come that frenchies dont speak that "good" english ?
2012-07-27 11:39:42
because people there doesn't care about others languages than French and still, 50% of them can not speak, write well their natal language + teachers there aren't good at all.
2012-07-27 13:03:10
Isn't it also a bit that french people DEFY to speak english? They think that their own language is superior...
Post edited 2012-07-27 14:44:19
Post edited 2012-07-27 14:44:19
2012-07-27 14:43:31
no system can completely erase the random factors, and compared with purposly lose for easier group which used to happen in previous system, lurppis's is better.
2012-07-27 08:25:16
When has a team ever lost on purpose?
2012-07-27 13:06:18
Mousesports vs Lions, last year.
2012-07-27 14:16:56
mouz jumped around the map with shotguns against lions and lost like 16-2 or something, to get easier opponent in quarterfinal
2012-07-27 15:18:22
mouz vs Lions at DreamHack Winter 2011
AGAiN vs TyLoo at WCG 2009
mTw vs some Belarus team at WCG 2010
those are just the three most known ones, there are way, way, waaaay more such as A-gaming vs eMg at WCG 2007, etc. it's not random why people lose on purpose the most at WCG btw, it's because they were stupid enough to publish the brackets in advance. my team wanted to lose on purpose vs a Dutch team at WCG 2007 too and we lost really close as a result because we kept it close while we were deciding whether to do it or not.
AGAiN vs TyLoo at WCG 2009
mTw vs some Belarus team at WCG 2010
those are just the three most known ones, there are way, way, waaaay more such as A-gaming vs eMg at WCG 2007, etc. it's not random why people lose on purpose the most at WCG btw, it's because they were stupid enough to publish the brackets in advance. my team wanted to lose on purpose vs a Dutch team at WCG 2007 too and we lost really close as a result because we kept it close while we were deciding whether to do it or not.
2012-07-27 15:57:13
AGAiN - TyLoo at WCG 2009
TyLoo was just better, they were playing on inferno where chinese teams play amazing and AGAiN not really
TyLoo was just better, they were playing on inferno where chinese teams play amazing and AGAiN not really
2012-07-28 00:45:09
you can keep telling yourself that or you can accept the fact they lost on purpose 110%. on that note, i'm pretty sure they lost on purpose vs my team at SEC last year too - smart move, they got a free ride to the finals (and then beat navi anyways).
2012-07-28 00:52:41
maybe you're right
2012-07-28 00:59:23
I think the traditional system is better than this one and much more fair (as long as the 30 rounds are played out), but well, they wanted to try that so let's wait and see. Group B's anomaly clearly shows how weird this new system is though.
2012-07-27 08:32:07
Play 30 rounds with shotguns and choose in which position you want to end in a groupstage (choose your playoff opponents). Play useless 30 rounds which noone takes serious and then loose in round difference.
So better and much more fair, really. /irony
So better and much more fair, really. /irony
2012-07-27 09:30:37
Haha X6 lost first round as t on de_train than disconnected from server. Yeah they derserve the second spot.
This match system is ok cause it really shows who is stronger or better prepared. You talk only about group a/b. But look at other groups
This match system is ok cause it really shows who is stronger or better prepared. You talk only about group a/b. But look at other groups
2012-07-27 08:36:41
24 teams, BO1 all vs all :P
na its true, no system is flawless
Post edited 2012-07-27 08:44:46
na its true, no system is flawless
Post edited 2012-07-27 08:44:46
2012-07-27 08:44:21
Karont3 [08:16] x6tence @de_nuke
x6tence [10:16] Karont3 @de_train
Karont3 - 24
x6tence - 26
zNation [10:16] paiN @de_inferno
zNation [16:14] paiN @de_inferno
zNation - 26
paiN - 30
WHAT THE FUCK?!? I didn't get that system.
x6tence [10:16] Karont3 @de_train
Karont3 - 24
x6tence - 26
zNation [10:16] paiN @de_inferno
zNation [16:14] paiN @de_inferno
zNation - 26
paiN - 30
WHAT THE FUCK?!? I didn't get that system.
2012-07-27 09:05:01
Yep, so what I am thinking is to add a decider match for these two teams. Thus, only one team will win two maps and the 2nd place is easy to decide.
2012-07-27 09:12:52
This system is good. Previous system was so random, but it need only improve and that is what linkun suggests. If the score is 1-1 there should be one more match to decide who advances.
2012-07-27 09:22:32
but why, why x6tence and paiN lost if they have more rounds?
2012-07-27 09:24:29
I will explain it shortly. Let's take group C.
Overproject lost 2 matches vs znation and ESC, therefore they had no chance to advance anymore and they didn't play any other matches (vs pain).
ESC won 2 matches and they were clearly 1st in their group, this meant they didn't need to play any other matches.
pain won over znation and sadly after that they met ESC where they lost. They had score 1-1.
znation lost over pain and then luckily met Overproject what means 1-1 score for them.
Pain and znation had same score so they went on rematch. Rematch is played on the same map. The round difference is not the important factor here. Who wins rematch advances. This is not fair at all, because there should be one more map. Score was 1-1.
I would not personally prefer a round difference advance.
Overproject lost 2 matches vs znation and ESC, therefore they had no chance to advance anymore and they didn't play any other matches (vs pain).
ESC won 2 matches and they were clearly 1st in their group, this meant they didn't need to play any other matches.
pain won over znation and sadly after that they met ESC where they lost. They had score 1-1.
znation lost over pain and then luckily met Overproject what means 1-1 score for them.
Pain and znation had same score so they went on rematch. Rematch is played on the same map. The round difference is not the important factor here. Who wins rematch advances. This is not fair at all, because there should be one more map. Score was 1-1.
I would not personally prefer a round difference advance.
2012-07-27 09:41:49
ok, i got it when i read rules in russian. but that system really sucks hard
2012-07-27 09:49:53
in other words, is this system trying to avoid that x random factor that takes out some good teams in the regular groupstage system (mostly because of round difference or bad luck at bo1 choices), but it depends completely on which team the 2nd place competitors will or will not meet in their last game?
As i can only understand, this system, besides of not cleaning at all the "bad luck" factor (which might be his main objective - provide a fairer decision, less random as it normally can be), simply annihilates lower team chances! (not only to classify as 2nd, but also a possible 1st place in the groupstage - therefore better chances at playoffs). I mean, it just doesnt make sense that you have to play only 2 matches to guaranty your 1st spot!
How would it be i.e. with 3 big teams fighting against 1st place? It just can't understand it. if there are 4 teams at a group, it simply isnt fair to not to play against all 3 of them (and therewith prove your spot).
As i can only understand, this system, besides of not cleaning at all the "bad luck" factor (which might be his main objective - provide a fairer decision, less random as it normally can be), simply annihilates lower team chances! (not only to classify as 2nd, but also a possible 1st place in the groupstage - therefore better chances at playoffs). I mean, it just doesnt make sense that you have to play only 2 matches to guaranty your 1st spot!
How would it be i.e. with 3 big teams fighting against 1st place? It just can't understand it. if there are 4 teams at a group, it simply isnt fair to not to play against all 3 of them (and therewith prove your spot).
2012-07-28 02:13:06
even if you count round difference so early, not make sense although, obviously you purposely erased the match pain vs esc and znation vs overproject, if all count in, it's all right then. the true fact is just that paiN unluckily meet esc while zNation verses overproject, that's all, and that's the random factor of the game, no system can exclude it.
2012-07-27 09:27:31
it's not bad luck that paiN met ESC, it's based on seedings which reward more successful teams.
2012-07-27 15:58:57
auh, didnt know that, many people thought the grouping in each group is done by lot or something...but this time the seeding teams znation and karont3 both lose the first map and win the second against paiN and x6tence,,,am I interpreting it correctly? and many thanks!
2012-07-27 17:02:43
Don't you think it would be more fair if paiN and zNation played a 3rd map, as zNation was _clearly_ favored playing against OP, and paiN against ESC?
2012-07-27 22:46:35
no, because it isn't a round robin, it's a double elimination bracket within a group of four teams.
the first match is to gain a chance to win the group - by winning, pain had a shot at taking down esc for first place, while znation could have gone out instantly.
the knockout game is what determines who advances, it is - brace yourself - a separate match, in the lower bracket of that group, which has nothing to do with the earlier match.
my example from below:
"At WCG Quiver Shoot-out 2009 in New York my team (EG) beat Gravitas 16-6 on de_inferno in the upper bracket and then lost to coL in the upper bracket finals on de_train. In lower bracket we lost against Gravitas on de_inferno, who then went on to lose against coL in the finals. Does that make double elimination unfair that we finished 1-1 in our head-to-head games but they placed better?"
obviously this format seems worse at a tournament like gamegune which has 3 top teams, 3 good teams, around 6 average teams and then teams with no chance, because no one has a legitimate chance to upset #1 seed, but in a tournament like IEM it would make sense to everyone i think, because getting to play for the first place in the group would actually be a reward.
the first match is to gain a chance to win the group - by winning, pain had a shot at taking down esc for first place, while znation could have gone out instantly.
the knockout game is what determines who advances, it is - brace yourself - a separate match, in the lower bracket of that group, which has nothing to do with the earlier match.
my example from below:
"At WCG Quiver Shoot-out 2009 in New York my team (EG) beat Gravitas 16-6 on de_inferno in the upper bracket and then lost to coL in the upper bracket finals on de_train. In lower bracket we lost against Gravitas on de_inferno, who then went on to lose against coL in the finals. Does that make double elimination unfair that we finished 1-1 in our head-to-head games but they placed better?"
obviously this format seems worse at a tournament like gamegune which has 3 top teams, 3 good teams, around 6 average teams and then teams with no chance, because no one has a legitimate chance to upset #1 seed, but in a tournament like IEM it would make sense to everyone i think, because getting to play for the first place in the group would actually be a reward.
2012-07-27 23:05:13
if you say its a bad system unless top teams are playing like IEM....why use this format at gamegune when we knew the majority of teams attending was not top teams? fucking idiot
2012-07-28 03:04:03
unfairnes caused by random event is more acceptable than the ones caused by man-induced factor, if you exaggerate the unfairness by blindly conceal some more obvious fact that suggest the otherwise, you are not making any contribution to a better format.
2012-07-27 09:53:55
I don't think there is any contradiction between our points. Coz I agree with lurppis' new system and as u said it can avoid man-induced factor. But there is a way to make it even better, why not have a shot. Just add one decider match if two teams got even score. And as I known, it's hard to find excuse to lose a BO3 match which is not as random as a BO1. So just a suggestion, we all hope cs1.6 will have bright future although from current circumstance it seems to be hard.:P
2012-07-27 10:23:36
ahah, u forgot ur title 0_o
btw, another earlier thread of gamegune format are pretty clear actually, if u didnt read it yet, go check it out.
btw, another earlier thread of gamegune format are pretty clear actually, if u didnt read it yet, go check it out.
2012-07-27 13:41:34
i said it is a suggestion to the current rule, if u are not clear, plz plz check out what i said again. :D
2012-07-27 14:56:57
I didnt say anything #84, just joke on ur title which is against what u r saying @#36. nvm.
2012-07-27 16:38:36
just make it bo3 between #2 #3.
2012-07-27 10:06:11
that's not a solution. you just neglect znation's win against overproject and karont3's win against miticos.
2012-07-27 10:11:29
make it bo2 then if #2 wins. 1 more map they go through.
2012-07-27 10:13:53
not sure what u r saying, but they already played 2 maps,,,one more map, then it's bo3.
2012-07-27 10:18:40
They should have played one more map. It was 1-1 on maps and it doesn't really say who's better.
2012-07-27 10:29:39
still, here is the paradox: some think the number of matches a team wins in the whole group is more important; but you take them out of the group, and separately count the round difference. normally, it is when dealing with three teams, ABC, A WIN B, B WIN C, C WIN A, then it comes to round difference count. if exchange teams like overproject and miticos with a STRONG ONE LIKE SK, there wont be so many complaints, though with sk, the scene will totally different. but face the reality, it's not the fault of the system.
2012-07-27 10:43:04
But I see the problem here. These teams were equal to each other what led to this problem. And the problem is there will likely always be equal teams in 2nd or 3rd place decider. I just suggest to avoid this problem by doing one more map; what is more accurately than round diff.
One more time, I don't criticise the system itself. It has good point. Just this needs improve imo.
One more time, I don't criticise the system itself. It has good point. Just this needs improve imo.
2012-07-27 11:00:32
facepalm
2012-07-27 11:45:26
yeah it should be a deciding map at 1-1 . but this system is alot better in the sense that no one can lose on purpose to get easier opponents, and thats good imo
2012-07-27 10:20:49
yeah imo k3 and vp should have had to win 2 maps.. shitty event so far with system and delays
2012-07-27 10:23:38
new system is suck and not fair
Post edited 2012-07-27 10:36:50
Post edited 2012-07-27 10:36:50
2012-07-27 10:36:40
this system could be used in IEM,ESWC, where competition is high, not in GameGune. But now that has gone.
2012-07-27 10:45:02
i think that the rematch map should be choosen by the #2 team so they have a little advantage...
Post edited 2012-07-27 10:46:27
Post edited 2012-07-27 10:46:27
2012-07-27 10:46:14
it would be super awesome system with lets say 8 top teams 2 groups. since then it often gets fucked up but here you have 1 favorite team that will win group easy then its impossible for 3 waytie.
2012-07-27 10:49:11
it should be like in MLG.
Teams that have already met, go for an extended series, for example bo3 starting from the score in the first encounter.
Example karonte lost vs x6tence first time 1-0. second time they met it's bo3 with x6tence having a 1-0 advantage map wise.
This is how MLG does it and it works perfectly.
Post edited 2012-07-27 10:54:37
Teams that have already met, go for an extended series, for example bo3 starting from the score in the first encounter.
Example karonte lost vs x6tence first time 1-0. second time they met it's bo3 with x6tence having a 1-0 advantage map wise.
This is how MLG does it and it works perfectly.
Post edited 2012-07-27 10:54:37
2012-07-27 10:51:55
exactly
2012-07-27 11:57:09
lurppis , when k1ck faced delta , should counted like b03 mode , or x6 vs k3 bo3, that whats missing in ur project , the rest is perfect
2012-07-27 11:01:29
+1
2012-07-27 11:05:29
+1 so the system would be fair ;)
2012-07-27 17:55:40
Try to make the system like an upper bracket team is facing a lower bracket one. Who won the first match only needs one map to win and the other two.
2012-07-27 11:18:29
"Let's use gamegune as an example."
well chosen example, cosidering its the ONLY event with that format so far.
well chosen example, cosidering its the ONLY event with that format so far.
2012-07-27 11:23:37
this system eliminates far too many flaws while having only 1 obvious drawback.....I like it personally since a 4th seed can never make it through by surprising only the 3rd seed in a random match
2012-07-27 12:09:38
totally agree with...it's not fair that for example Karont3 gets another chance to face x6 even though they lost to them already....if it was old group stage system, you lose - you lose!
+1 for idea of the 3rd map in case of 1:1 map win situation!
+1 for idea of the 3rd map in case of 1:1 map win situation!
2012-07-27 12:18:23
It's not tomi's system, it's the Korean system. Starcraft used this format for a long time. It's great once you get used to it.
2012-07-27 12:20:24
However in Starcraft (referring to GSL, don't know about the rest), the system is used together with BO3, which is much more fair than two BO1 clashes.
2012-07-27 12:26:12
You can't get it? It is fair...
There is 2 first matches...
then winner vs winner (upper) and loser vs loser (lower)
winner of upper advance from 1st place and loser of lower is 4th
then winer of lower is playing vs loser of upper and winner of it advance form 2nd
It's mini bracket inside group stage, if you still don't get it maybe you should draw it?
and match for 2nd place is bo1 because of time.. if it'll be bo2 we'll have more delays...
Post edited 2012-07-27 12:42:03
There is 2 first matches...
then winner vs winner (upper) and loser vs loser (lower)
winner of upper advance from 1st place and loser of lower is 4th
then winer of lower is playing vs loser of upper and winner of it advance form 2nd
It's mini bracket inside group stage, if you still don't get it maybe you should draw it?
and match for 2nd place is bo1 because of time.. if it'll be bo2 we'll have more delays...
Post edited 2012-07-27 12:42:03
2012-07-27 12:34:22
thanks
2012-07-27 12:38:03
yep, ur right, but the 1st result between two teams should count as a one map lead in BO3 for the winning team.
I just think it's fairer, but as u said, delay gonna be a quite big problem.
I just think it's fairer, but as u said, delay gonna be a quite big problem.
2012-07-27 13:06:18
You definetely don't know how the upper/lower bracket system goes on.
2012-07-27 13:27:50
as i said, i like the system. Why? because, for example, in group A we have 1 team much worst that the others: webone. with this new formate, that team only played 2 games. there is no need to play a 3rd and i agree. is better for us spectators because instead of a unbalanced game between webone and Delta, we have a interesting 2 match Delta k1ck. The same happened in the other groups.
so, we skip a noob match and win a interesting one.
so, we skip a noob match and win a interesting one.
2012-07-27 12:40:50
why isn't lurppis participating?
2012-07-27 13:45:40
i dont like it cuz makes no sense teams from the same group dont face each other and the weakest team play less match just because they are weak. The tournament cant be planned just fot the strongest teams.
Post edited 2012-07-27 13:58:03
Post edited 2012-07-27 13:58:03
2012-07-27 13:57:50
The new system is way better than the old one. It just need one little change:
If the 3rd and 2nd seeded team meat again in the last game, the team coming from the "lower rated match" should have to win 2 maps.
If the 3rd and 2nd seeded team meat again in the last game, the team coming from the "lower rated match" should have to win 2 maps.
2012-07-27 14:02:27
exactly
2012-07-27 14:18:44
but then that team needs to win 3 maps to progress and thats not fair,and this way either way team that wins two maps is going through
2012-07-27 14:54:50
Uhm, the team which lost the first match will (in 99,9% of all tournaments) play against the last seeded team while the other team has to play against the first seeded team. That's a big difference.
Seeding:
Team A
Team B
Team C
Team D
Lets's say team A is way stronger than the other teams:
A >>>>> B,C,D
Team D is way weaker than the other teams:
A,B,C >>>> D
Now this happens:
A vs. D : 16:0
B vs. C : 16:6
A vs. B : 16:2
C vs. D : 16:2
Now B and C meet again:
B vs: C : 14:16
C will reach the playoffs, B is out. But how is that fair? Both of them may have two wins, but B had the harder opponents. They tied up with 1:1, but C won more rounds against B. The best would be a 3rd map to decide once for all who's the better team.
Post edited 2012-07-27 15:32:41
Seeding:
Team A
Team B
Team C
Team D
Lets's say team A is way stronger than the other teams:
A >>>>> B,C,D
Team D is way weaker than the other teams:
A,B,C >>>> D
Now this happens:
A vs. D : 16:0
B vs. C : 16:6
A vs. B : 16:2
C vs. D : 16:2
Now B and C meet again:
B vs: C : 14:16
C will reach the playoffs, B is out. But how is that fair? Both of them may have two wins, but B had the harder opponents. They tied up with 1:1, but C won more rounds against B. The best would be a 3rd map to decide once for all who's the better team.
Post edited 2012-07-27 15:32:41
2012-07-27 15:22:21
thats only one possible outcome and btw if team b won the first time 16 6 and then lost 14 16 that doesnt clearly mean they are better than team c
2012-07-27 15:52:11
Never said this makes B the better team. I said it would be the best to play a 3rd map to make it clear.
Post edited 2012-07-27 15:56:12
Post edited 2012-07-27 15:56:12
2012-07-27 15:55:10
the point of this system is to make groups faster bcs team d plays one less match(clearly worst team) and because if teams are similar in skill one map isnt always fair(team b and c),i understand your point but thats just playing bo3 for the second place and thats crazy :D
2012-07-27 16:00:14
That's not crazy, that's just fair:
There are only 3 scenarios where a 3rd map is needed and it's just 1 map more (it's not like every match is now a bo3).
I mean look at the reality:
In most cases the first seeded team is on a whole other level than the other 3 teams and the 4rd seeded team isn't even able to compete with the rest. What's the point of the first match between the 2nd and the 3rd seeded team if they will meet again anyway and the first match doesn't affect anything?
The system's goal should be to make clear, which two teams are the best.
Post edited 2012-07-27 16:10:30
There are only 3 scenarios where a 3rd map is needed and it's just 1 map more (it's not like every match is now a bo3).
I mean look at the reality:
In most cases the first seeded team is on a whole other level than the other 3 teams and the 4rd seeded team isn't even able to compete with the rest. What's the point of the first match between the 2nd and the 3rd seeded team if they will meet again anyway and the first match doesn't affect anything?
The system's goal should be to make clear, which two teams are the best.
Post edited 2012-07-27 16:10:30
2012-07-27 16:08:48
well that all depends on whether 2nd and 3rd seeded team are equally skilled , and this system is better than the old one , but yeah the best would be bo3 groups and that is not possible really,in most cases yeah first seeded team is much better but what if 2nd seeded team is on the same level it wouldnt be fair that they play bo1 then?so you have to determine each group by rankings do they play bo1 or bo3
2012-07-27 16:51:21
"and this system is better than the old one ,"
Yes, I prefer this system too. Never liked the round-robin-system.
"what if 2nd seeded team is on the same level it wouldnt be fair that they play bo1 then?"
Why not? They still got a second change to succeed.
"so you have to determine each group by rankings do they play bo1 or bo3"
You probably misunderstood me:
It should always be a BO1 with only one exception: If two teams meet again. In this case they play a BO3, but the team coming from the upper-bracket got already 1 won map (so they only have to win 1 more).
Yes, I prefer this system too. Never liked the round-robin-system.
"what if 2nd seeded team is on the same level it wouldnt be fair that they play bo1 then?"
Why not? They still got a second change to succeed.
"so you have to determine each group by rankings do they play bo1 or bo3"
You probably misunderstood me:
It should always be a BO1 with only one exception: If two teams meet again. In this case they play a BO3, but the team coming from the upper-bracket got already 1 won map (so they only have to win 1 more).
2012-07-27 17:11:24
There are also two other (but very very unlikely) scenarios where a 3rd map is needed:
A vs. D : D wins! (very unlikely)
B vs. C : B wins
D vs. B : B wins
C vs. A : A wins
Now A and D meet again and IMO A should have to win 2 maps.
A vs. D : D wins! (very unlikely)
B vs. C : B wins
D vs. B : D wins (unlikely)
C vs. A : C wins (unlikely)
Now B and C meet again and C should have to win 2 maps.
These are the only scenarios where a 3rd map is needed. In all the other scenarios 1 map is enough.
So they rule would be like:
"If two teams meet again, the team coming from the "lower rated match" needs to win two maps".
Post edited 2012-07-27 15:59:18
A vs. D : D wins! (very unlikely)
B vs. C : B wins
D vs. B : B wins
C vs. A : A wins
Now A and D meet again and IMO A should have to win 2 maps.
A vs. D : D wins! (very unlikely)
B vs. C : B wins
D vs. B : D wins (unlikely)
C vs. A : C wins (unlikely)
Now B and C meet again and C should have to win 2 maps.
These are the only scenarios where a 3rd map is needed. In all the other scenarios 1 map is enough.
So they rule would be like:
"If two teams meet again, the team coming from the "lower rated match" needs to win two maps".
Post edited 2012-07-27 15:59:18
2012-07-27 15:53:34
i agree the third map would make the system better in a sense, but you also have to realize some matches are more important in tournaments than others. often same teams meet in upper bracket and lower bracket, and only the one who loses in lower bracket goes out even though they split maps 1-1.
what happens if na`vi beats esc 2-0 in lower bracket 16-1 and 16-1, and then loses a super close series 1-2 in overtime with scores of 16-1, 17-19, 17-19 - does that mean there should be another series or that na`vi were better?
it just means esc won the more important series of the two :). the first match is still important, because without winning it you don't get a chance to win the group.
what happens if na`vi beats esc 2-0 in lower bracket 16-1 and 16-1, and then loses a super close series 1-2 in overtime with scores of 16-1, 17-19, 17-19 - does that mean there should be another series or that na`vi were better?
it just means esc won the more important series of the two :). the first match is still important, because without winning it you don't get a chance to win the group.
2012-07-27 16:03:25
Every one gets their own opinion, so why not have a poll?
Maybe u r right, maybe i am right. But the public's trends is much powerful then just few people running a debate.
But, I still have to say it's a nice system, good job lurppis.
Maybe u r right, maybe i am right. But the public's trends is much powerful then just few people running a debate.
But, I still have to say it's a nice system, good job lurppis.
2012-07-27 16:34:15
Hehe, I understand where you are coming from... But to tell you the truth people jump on bandwagons so quickly without doing any thinking themselves that having a poll will hardly bring credible results about whether a system is good. A debate on the contrary can actually sway the public and the different parties to have the same and "correct" opinion. A poll won't really change anything or convince anyone :)
2012-07-27 16:42:53
Hey bro, I really hope u studied statistics before. There is actually no correct opinion here, coz lurppis is right, sometimes there are more important matches for people to watch, and if my opinion is taken, then definitely it would delay the whole match. But imo my idea can bring more fairness. There is no 100% correct I believe u also know this, but why not let the public to choose what they prefer?
2012-07-27 17:02:52
In this case I agree that there is no "correct" system or one can't necessarily say that one is better than the other. But this system is new to the cs scene and some of the arguments people give to make this system look bad are to put it frank, stupid. This makes having a poll a bit hasty before people have actually realized the potential benefits and drawbacks.
I'm not sure how you believe statistics, having a poll and correct way to proceed are related. A poll will of course collect the public's opinion up to a confidence interval, but the problem is that the majority of people are _always_ misinformed and just jump on the bandwagon of someone who gives the best oneliner. And I'm not saying that I am magically somehow "informed", but this was the reason I was making fun of the idea of a poll in general a bit :)
I'm not sure how you believe statistics, having a poll and correct way to proceed are related. A poll will of course collect the public's opinion up to a confidence interval, but the problem is that the majority of people are _always_ misinformed and just jump on the bandwagon of someone who gives the best oneliner. And I'm not saying that I am magically somehow "informed", but this was the reason I was making fun of the idea of a poll in general a bit :)
2012-07-27 17:17:23
IMO the team coming from the lower-bracket should always have to win 2 maps while the one from the upper-bracket only needs 1 map to win.
When I played actively this was a common thing. Didn't know this changed...
Round-differences are worthless IMO. There are so many factors that influence them which haven't much to do with the actual quality of the teams (especially the balance of maps: there are more close results on a perfect balanced map than on a less balanced map). It's should be all about winning or losing maps.
Tbh I don't get your example. If they meet in the lower-bracket, they can't meet again in the upper-bracket. Did I misunderstand something?
When I played actively this was a common thing. Didn't know this changed...
Round-differences are worthless IMO. There are so many factors that influence them which haven't much to do with the actual quality of the teams (especially the balance of maps: there are more close results on a perfect balanced map than on a less balanced map). It's should be all about winning or losing maps.
Tbh I don't get your example. If they meet in the lower-bracket, they can't meet again in the upper-bracket. Did I misunderstand something?
2012-07-27 16:41:19
yes, in the grand finals the team has to win twice, but this is no grand final, it's just another match in the bracket. the team who won the group would have to be beaten twice, not the others. why would the team who won the initial match have to lose 3 times to go out?
well obviously i meant upper bracket first and then lower bracket, just too tired to realize i wrote it wrong.
well obviously i meant upper bracket first and then lower bracket, just too tired to realize i wrote it wrong.
2012-07-27 18:35:03
" why would the team who won the initial match have to lose 3 times to go out?"
I'm only speaking about the case of two teams meeting again.
I tried to explain the reason to do it this way in comment #137 and #144.
I'm only speaking about the case of two teams meeting again.
I tried to explain the reason to do it this way in comment #137 and #144.
2012-07-27 18:43:11
one thing I think should be included is:
-The map played on the first round is excluded in the third round if both teams meet again. We saw k1ck rematching DELTA on train and the history was the same. I think not playing the same map both games makes it a bit more balanced. I remember last year k1ck playing DH and they played three rounds on de_nuke. Made no sense at all. (I'm speaking of k1ck because it's the only cases I remember since now I don't watch a lot of CS).
-The map played on the first round is excluded in the third round if both teams meet again. We saw k1ck rematching DELTA on train and the history was the same. I think not playing the same map both games makes it a bit more balanced. I remember last year k1ck playing DH and they played three rounds on de_nuke. Made no sense at all. (I'm speaking of k1ck because it's the only cases I remember since now I don't watch a lot of CS).
2012-07-27 22:33:44
The "harder opponents" comment is out of place in my opinion. As I posted in another thread by winning vs C in the first match B earns themselves 2 games in which they can guarantee advancement, and they have only 1 game where they are in danger of dropping out. It's vice versa for C since they lost the first game. Thus clearly winning the first game brings you an advantage, no matter who you face next. In your example the advantage is naturally minimal due to the skill differences of the teams, but it still exists.
C advancing is fair because they came through the double elim bracket as the 2nd best team. Or are you advocating also that everyone should generally in double elim adopt something like the "extended series" rule that MLG uses in sc2 which often totally ruins their entire lower bracket. In this system everyone is allowed to lose once and have to win twice to advance. I'm not going to comment whether this system is better than round robin overall, but the main benefit here is that every game really counts.
I find the possibility of matches where one or both teams have nothing to play for far worse of an issue. In addition to this different maps make using round difference as a tiebreaker in round robin arguable at best, making it sometimes impossible to have a "fair" round robin system.
C advancing is fair because they came through the double elim bracket as the 2nd best team. Or are you advocating also that everyone should generally in double elim adopt something like the "extended series" rule that MLG uses in sc2 which often totally ruins their entire lower bracket. In this system everyone is allowed to lose once and have to win twice to advance. I'm not going to comment whether this system is better than round robin overall, but the main benefit here is that every game really counts.
I find the possibility of matches where one or both teams have nothing to play for far worse of an issue. In addition to this different maps make using round difference as a tiebreaker in round robin arguable at best, making it sometimes impossible to have a "fair" round robin system.
2012-07-27 16:03:49
The thing is: This little "tweak" wouldn't change these principles at all. Yes, winning the first game always gives you some little advantage, but if the first and the fourth seeded teams are on a whole other level the advantage of having an "almost in-existent change to make it out of the tournament in the next match" and the disadvantage of having an "almost in-existent change to drop out of the tournament in the next match" aren't enough.
This little "tweak" would only become relevant if those advantage/disadvantages aren't enough.
"C advancing is fair because they came through the double elim bracket as the 2nd best team. "
Not if one of those "eliminations" was a free win while the game between A and B was almost impossible to win for B.
"Or are you advocating also that everyone should generally in double elim adopt something like the "extended series" rule that MLG uses in sc2 which often totally ruins their entire lower bracket."
I've no idea what that is. Never followed Starcraft, MLG or whatever.
" I'm not going to comment whether this system is better than round robin overall,.."
IMO this system is definitely better than the round-robin-system.
".. but the main benefit here is that every game really counts."
My little tweak wouldn't change that at all.
Post edited 2012-07-27 17:03:37
This little "tweak" would only become relevant if those advantage/disadvantages aren't enough.
"C advancing is fair because they came through the double elim bracket as the 2nd best team. "
Not if one of those "eliminations" was a free win while the game between A and B was almost impossible to win for B.
"Or are you advocating also that everyone should generally in double elim adopt something like the "extended series" rule that MLG uses in sc2 which often totally ruins their entire lower bracket."
I've no idea what that is. Never followed Starcraft, MLG or whatever.
" I'm not going to comment whether this system is better than round robin overall,.."
IMO this system is definitely better than the round-robin-system.
".. but the main benefit here is that every game really counts."
My little tweak wouldn't change that at all.
Post edited 2012-07-27 17:03:37
2012-07-27 17:02:46
MLG's so called "extended series" is that if two players have already met in the upper bracket, that result carries also to their match in the lower bracket and the match becomes "extended". So if applied here, because A wins over B 1-0 in the upper bracket, B should win 2 maps while A should win only 1 if they meet again as you said. In MLG's case they do it for bo3's so the result of the upper bracket bo3 is the starting score and the match is essentially a bo7. I don't agree with it because it makes a lot of the lower bracket matches stupid because one player already can have a 2-0 advantage eventhough they are in the same phase of the tournament.
"Not if one of those "eliminations" was a free win while the game between A and B was almost impossible to win for B."
Let's say that we have a traditional double elimination bracket and two teams meet in the upper bracket. The team that wins then goes on to face a vastly superior team next in the upper bracket and also drops down to the lower bracket. Then after a few games the two teams that faced each other meet again in the lower bracket. Do you think the team that won before should have an advantage in this game eventhough they are both already in the lower bracket? I think this is essentially what you are saying here. I don't really agree with it. It might be though since I'm so stuck to the traditional double elim system that I just see it as "fair" without looking so closely at matchups between 2 teams.
Post edited 2012-07-27 17:34:00
"Not if one of those "eliminations" was a free win while the game between A and B was almost impossible to win for B."
Let's say that we have a traditional double elimination bracket and two teams meet in the upper bracket. The team that wins then goes on to face a vastly superior team next in the upper bracket and also drops down to the lower bracket. Then after a few games the two teams that faced each other meet again in the lower bracket. Do you think the team that won before should have an advantage in this game eventhough they are both already in the lower bracket? I think this is essentially what you are saying here. I don't really agree with it. It might be though since I'm so stuck to the traditional double elim system that I just see it as "fair" without looking so closely at matchups between 2 teams.
Post edited 2012-07-27 17:34:00
2012-07-27 17:25:26
Yes, I think it would be fair if the one coming from the upper-bracket gets an advantage
BUT ONLY IF:
1. We're talking about a BO1 system (the nature of CS makes BO1 not meaningful enough).
2. The two opponents already met before!
It's like a tool to provide the best possible selection. Obviously both teams aren't good enough to beat the first seeded team, but they are also better than the 4rd seed team. To make clear, which of them really deserves the second playoff-spot, it would be the best to turn the BO1 into a BO3, and by respecting the fact that team B already won 1 map against C, you also increase the importance of their first meet-up.
IMO this would be a perfect and very fair way to select the two best teams out of 4 without wasting too much time.
Post edited 2012-07-27 17:44:04
BUT ONLY IF:
1. We're talking about a BO1 system (the nature of CS makes BO1 not meaningful enough).
2. The two opponents already met before!
It's like a tool to provide the best possible selection. Obviously both teams aren't good enough to beat the first seeded team, but they are also better than the 4rd seed team. To make clear, which of them really deserves the second playoff-spot, it would be the best to turn the BO1 into a BO3, and by respecting the fact that team B already won 1 map against C, you also increase the importance of their first meet-up.
IMO this would be a perfect and very fair way to select the two best teams out of 4 without wasting too much time.
Post edited 2012-07-27 17:44:04
2012-07-27 17:41:43
yeah and PaiN losing against ESC and winning zNation, and going lower bracket because of that and zNation winning against a random team 16-0 and staying in upper bracket because of that. LoL, if that is fair... They should both play against the same strong opponent then and then against each other and the round difference should decide. the system is shit anyway, the old one was more fair
2012-07-27 14:21:33
I like this new system but the only problem is the rematch, where I think we should have a second map in those cases of 1-1
2012-07-27 14:41:09
it's unfair
2012-07-27 14:56:02
This system is made to avoid playing "3rd map" or 3way tie breaker.
2012-07-27 15:10:18
this system is not that bad, but they should make a BO3, where the team that won the first match takes an advantage of 1 map
paiN 16-10 zNation
then
zNation 16-14 paiN
they should play another map, who wins it, takes the 2nd place
paiN 16-10 zNation
then
zNation 16-14 paiN
they should play another map, who wins it, takes the 2nd place
2012-07-27 15:12:51
I dont really know what to think about it. Kuben said it has no sense.
2012-07-27 15:14:31
imo fnatic should qualify even if they loose all there matches..... its not fair to top team
2012-07-27 16:05:40
I can't agree with you not agreeing lurppis' new match system.
2012-07-27 16:05:40
Copy / pasting here what I posted in the other thread:
This system is not inherently bad. It is actually rather good, but it is simply inappropriate for this kind of game and tournament.
Classic use of this system: GSL Code S. It works brilliantly. Why? Because you have 32 players divided into 8 groups in which each player gets to pick who they want to face (order of selection is based on last season's performance). The important factor is also the fact that the players are very evenly matched - leading into more groups of death rather than groups where you can easily predict the winner. Two wins get you out of the group. Fifth set is the decider for who gets out in second place. Neat.
Now we have CS and GameGune. This system is entirely inappropriate for this kind of tournament because:
1) Teams are not evenly matched.
2) Groups are decided by seeding.
Let's look at Group A for example and change the chronology a little bit. Yes, I am aware that this has drawbacks in logic, but it's needed to create perspective.
DELTA plays fnatic = let's call it default loss.
k1ck plays WebOne = let's call it a free win.
Fnatic is the clear #1 seed for the group (if not for the tournament). WebOne is going to be stomped by everybody.
Therefore the real hot topic in the group is the second place decider between DELTA and k1ck, EXCEPT that one starts one match down and the other starts one match up. Hardly fair.
Let's look at Group C. Pain beats zNation in their first game, but the fact that they have to face ESC for the first place decider means that their first victory was COMPLETELY REDUNDANT because it will come down to the final, fifth game. Both Pain and zNation are aware that the first game between them is completely irrelevant because they will both be on 1-1 anyway and it will come down to the decider. So no, I do not think that it even brings more entertainment for the spectators. The teams in question know that they can throw games because for every hard earned win there will be a roflstomp loss and for every narrow loss there will be a free win.
Once again, it is not the fault of the format. The format itself is very good. The issue here is that seeding and a large discrepancy in skill between the teams makes for extremely skewed groups and this particular format inappropriate for this tournament.
This system is not inherently bad. It is actually rather good, but it is simply inappropriate for this kind of game and tournament.
Classic use of this system: GSL Code S. It works brilliantly. Why? Because you have 32 players divided into 8 groups in which each player gets to pick who they want to face (order of selection is based on last season's performance). The important factor is also the fact that the players are very evenly matched - leading into more groups of death rather than groups where you can easily predict the winner. Two wins get you out of the group. Fifth set is the decider for who gets out in second place. Neat.
Now we have CS and GameGune. This system is entirely inappropriate for this kind of tournament because:
1) Teams are not evenly matched.
2) Groups are decided by seeding.
Let's look at Group A for example and change the chronology a little bit. Yes, I am aware that this has drawbacks in logic, but it's needed to create perspective.
DELTA plays fnatic = let's call it default loss.
k1ck plays WebOne = let's call it a free win.
Fnatic is the clear #1 seed for the group (if not for the tournament). WebOne is going to be stomped by everybody.
Therefore the real hot topic in the group is the second place decider between DELTA and k1ck, EXCEPT that one starts one match down and the other starts one match up. Hardly fair.
Let's look at Group C. Pain beats zNation in their first game, but the fact that they have to face ESC for the first place decider means that their first victory was COMPLETELY REDUNDANT because it will come down to the final, fifth game. Both Pain and zNation are aware that the first game between them is completely irrelevant because they will both be on 1-1 anyway and it will come down to the decider. So no, I do not think that it even brings more entertainment for the spectators. The teams in question know that they can throw games because for every hard earned win there will be a roflstomp loss and for every narrow loss there will be a free win.
Once again, it is not the fault of the format. The format itself is very good. The issue here is that seeding and a large discrepancy in skill between the teams makes for extremely skewed groups and this particular format inappropriate for this tournament.
2012-07-27 16:12:02
Hmm, even if I posted above that every game really matters you have some decent points. In the fnatic example I disagree if I understand what you mean correctly. k1ck wins against webone, then they play vs fnatic. If they lose to fnatic, they have their spot in the 2nd/3rd place match due to their win vs webone. Delta loses against fnatic, so they also have to win vs webone to earn their place in the next match. Of course k1ck has a game where they are in no danger of dropping from playoffs giving them an advantage but it still isn't really a problem. In this case the situation almost resembles a round robin where round 3 of the games has fnatic vs webone and k1ck vs Delta and round 1 and 2 are the games you gave as an example.
In your group C example I have to agree. If there are two evenly matched teams who face each other in the first game and then teams clearly above and below them, the first game can be pretty redundant. Though they are playing for a shot at challenging ESC so one would imagine that the teams would try their best even if a rematch later is extremely likely.
Post edited 2012-07-27 16:38:52
In your group C example I have to agree. If there are two evenly matched teams who face each other in the first game and then teams clearly above and below them, the first game can be pretty redundant. Though they are playing for a shot at challenging ESC so one would imagine that the teams would try their best even if a rematch later is extremely likely.
Post edited 2012-07-27 16:38:52
2012-07-27 16:37:50
You are right, but that's why I said: "Let's look at Group A for example and change the chronology a little bit. Yes, I am aware that this has drawbacks in logic, but it's needed to create perspective."
Basically what I was trying to get at was imagine k1ck had won the second match against DELTA. Then we'd have k1ck in second place with a free win and a win and a loss vs DELTA (and likewise for DELTA if they had lost the first game but won the second). Let's disregard the Spanish team - so basically it's 1-1 for the 2nd place and 1-1 for the 3rd place (let's disregard the fnatic game too).
The teams play each other twice. Why is it that the second encounter should be the one that determines the overall outcome? Like I said, it makes sense when the teams / players are evenly matched. It also makes sense in an upper/lower bracket situation, but in the currently context it is absurd and arbitrary.
Basically what I was trying to get at was imagine k1ck had won the second match against DELTA. Then we'd have k1ck in second place with a free win and a win and a loss vs DELTA (and likewise for DELTA if they had lost the first game but won the second). Let's disregard the Spanish team - so basically it's 1-1 for the 2nd place and 1-1 for the 3rd place (let's disregard the fnatic game too).
The teams play each other twice. Why is it that the second encounter should be the one that determines the overall outcome? Like I said, it makes sense when the teams / players are evenly matched. It also makes sense in an upper/lower bracket situation, but in the currently context it is absurd and arbitrary.
2012-07-27 17:10:51
karont3 had better round difference.
2012-07-27 16:50:41
There are a number of points to be explained here:
A) This is neither lurppis' system nor a new one. It has been used in Korean StarCraft (MSL) since 2006.
B) The argument people are making about two teams meeting twice and being tied 1-1 but one going through makes no sense at all.
i) This is not a round robin, it's a double elimination group stage. So essentially the team who won the upper bracket match between the two meets the loser in the lower bracket and the loser then wins. Where is the problem with that? That's how every single double elimination bracket has worked since the beginning of time.
Imagine a full double elimination bracket tournament, which this is but with less teams:
fnatic beats ESC in the upper bracket quarter-final, then fnatic loses later in the upper bracket final and ends up meeting ESC, who have won their way through the lower bracket, in the consolidation final. By the logic of the people in this thread then if ESC wins there should be a third game played, while if fnatic wins they should move on to the final.
ii) The value of each win/loss is not equal throughout the bracket. The winner of the first match between the two gets a large advantage in that they are now a single win away from progressing directly to the playoffs. The loser of the first match has a large disadvantage in that they still have to win two matches to progress, so they will have to play three matches total in the group if they are to progress.
iii) Comparing round difference as some kind of proof of who should have won makes no sense at all. A win is a win, doesn't matter if it's 16:14 or 16:0.
Let's say Team A plays Team B in a series:
Map 1: Team A 16:14 Team B
Map 2: Team A 00:16 Team B
Map 3: Team A 16:14 Team B
By the logic of the people comparing the round difference of the two maps played by paiN and their opponent then in this scenario they think Team B should win the series, despite losing two maps, since they have a round difference advantage of +12. The point I am making here is that we have set criteria to decide who wins, so using different criteria to find a way the other team could be considered the winner is a waste of everyone's time.
In the case of my above example the winner is the first to win two maps in the Bo3, regardless of round difference. In the case of this group stage system the team who progresses is the one who wins 2 matches and the team who loses is the one who loses two matches.
It also makes no sense to look at round difference since the teams could have played on different maps. Imagine the first map is train and Team A starts CT and wins 16:4. The second time they meet they play on inferno and Team A starts CT again but gets 6 rounds this time. Even if Team A now loses the second map they guaranteed to have the round difference advantage. That is a terrible system for deciding who the better team is, since it's based both on the map and which side you get to start on. A win is a win.
iv) It is impossible to have a "fair" system in terms of who plays who in the first match of the group stage, but that is not due to the structure or the seeding system, it's due to life itself. If there were an equal number of really good teams then obviously we could have it so that every team played an equally skilled opponent in their first game. There aren't though so someone is going to have to play an "easier" opponent and someone is going to have to play a "harder" opponent. That's how every double elimination bracket works, and why there are always teams with easier routes than others.
What people seem to fail to understand is that the previous group stage system (round robin) did not address this issue.
In round robin if you play the hardest teams early in your group then in any 2/3-way ties to get out of the group your team has a much bigger advantage, since you might play the worst teams in the group once they are already eliminated on points, and thus are more likely to give up a lot of rounds with little resistance.
On the other hand the person you end up being tied with might have played the weak teams first, when they are trying their hardest since they are still in the tournament, and then has to face the top teams later in the group, who are better than both teams in this example anyway.
There is also the opposite issue of a similar thing happening but with a team who has already won the group, and thus goes easier on their opponent, who will be in a 2/3 way tie, in their last game.
These scenarios are all a nightmare for tournaments which use round difference, since aside from the round difference issues I mention in the previous point you also have this issue of scheduling affecting the outcome of the group.
Post edited 2012-07-27 19:24:30
A) This is neither lurppis' system nor a new one. It has been used in Korean StarCraft (MSL) since 2006.
B) The argument people are making about two teams meeting twice and being tied 1-1 but one going through makes no sense at all.
i) This is not a round robin, it's a double elimination group stage. So essentially the team who won the upper bracket match between the two meets the loser in the lower bracket and the loser then wins. Where is the problem with that? That's how every single double elimination bracket has worked since the beginning of time.
Imagine a full double elimination bracket tournament, which this is but with less teams:
fnatic beats ESC in the upper bracket quarter-final, then fnatic loses later in the upper bracket final and ends up meeting ESC, who have won their way through the lower bracket, in the consolidation final. By the logic of the people in this thread then if ESC wins there should be a third game played, while if fnatic wins they should move on to the final.
ii) The value of each win/loss is not equal throughout the bracket. The winner of the first match between the two gets a large advantage in that they are now a single win away from progressing directly to the playoffs. The loser of the first match has a large disadvantage in that they still have to win two matches to progress, so they will have to play three matches total in the group if they are to progress.
iii) Comparing round difference as some kind of proof of who should have won makes no sense at all. A win is a win, doesn't matter if it's 16:14 or 16:0.
Let's say Team A plays Team B in a series:
Map 1: Team A 16:14 Team B
Map 2: Team A 00:16 Team B
Map 3: Team A 16:14 Team B
By the logic of the people comparing the round difference of the two maps played by paiN and their opponent then in this scenario they think Team B should win the series, despite losing two maps, since they have a round difference advantage of +12. The point I am making here is that we have set criteria to decide who wins, so using different criteria to find a way the other team could be considered the winner is a waste of everyone's time.
In the case of my above example the winner is the first to win two maps in the Bo3, regardless of round difference. In the case of this group stage system the team who progresses is the one who wins 2 matches and the team who loses is the one who loses two matches.
It also makes no sense to look at round difference since the teams could have played on different maps. Imagine the first map is train and Team A starts CT and wins 16:4. The second time they meet they play on inferno and Team A starts CT again but gets 6 rounds this time. Even if Team A now loses the second map they guaranteed to have the round difference advantage. That is a terrible system for deciding who the better team is, since it's based both on the map and which side you get to start on. A win is a win.
iv) It is impossible to have a "fair" system in terms of who plays who in the first match of the group stage, but that is not due to the structure or the seeding system, it's due to life itself. If there were an equal number of really good teams then obviously we could have it so that every team played an equally skilled opponent in their first game. There aren't though so someone is going to have to play an "easier" opponent and someone is going to have to play a "harder" opponent. That's how every double elimination bracket works, and why there are always teams with easier routes than others.
What people seem to fail to understand is that the previous group stage system (round robin) did not address this issue.
In round robin if you play the hardest teams early in your group then in any 2/3-way ties to get out of the group your team has a much bigger advantage, since you might play the worst teams in the group once they are already eliminated on points, and thus are more likely to give up a lot of rounds with little resistance.
On the other hand the person you end up being tied with might have played the weak teams first, when they are trying their hardest since they are still in the tournament, and then has to face the top teams later in the group, who are better than both teams in this example anyway.
There is also the opposite issue of a similar thing happening but with a team who has already won the group, and thus goes easier on their opponent, who will be in a 2/3 way tie, in their last game.
These scenarios are all a nightmare for tournaments which use round difference, since aside from the round difference issues I mention in the previous point you also have this issue of scheduling affecting the outcome of the group.
Post edited 2012-07-27 19:24:30
2012-07-27 19:12:41
this where you guys actually read this entire post and then proceed to post +1 because this answers every possible question
2012-07-27 19:16:22
I still don't get why this additional rule I mentioned above isn't needed.
First of all: We're not talking about a bracket of 20 teams and BO3 matches. It's just a small 4 teams brackets and the matches are played in BO1.
If I my team would be second or third seeded in a group of 4 teams, where the first seeded team is (almost) unbeatable and the 4rd seeded team a free-win, I definitely wouldn't travel around the whole fucking globe. I mean the first game isn't even relevant so I would play only one real game on one fucking map. That's just bullshit.
This additional rule only causes 1 map more per group and that only under special circumstances (the opponents must have met before and the team coming from the lower rated match has to win the first map).
I still can't see any argument that makes comment #137 and #144 invalid.
Thorin is right with everything he said, but the fact that the new system is better than the old doesn't make the new system perfect. It's just a small but nice tweak.
Post edited 2012-07-27 19:57:10
First of all: We're not talking about a bracket of 20 teams and BO3 matches. It's just a small 4 teams brackets and the matches are played in BO1.
If I my team would be second or third seeded in a group of 4 teams, where the first seeded team is (almost) unbeatable and the 4rd seeded team a free-win, I definitely wouldn't travel around the whole fucking globe. I mean the first game isn't even relevant so I would play only one real game on one fucking map. That's just bullshit.
This additional rule only causes 1 map more per group and that only under special circumstances (the opponents must have met before and the team coming from the lower rated match has to win the first map).
I still can't see any argument that makes comment #137 and #144 invalid.
Thorin is right with everything he said, but the fact that the new system is better than the old doesn't make the new system perfect. It's just a small but nice tweak.
Post edited 2012-07-27 19:57:10
2012-07-27 19:55:09
If the bracket was played out and the team who finished second (let's take GameGune's B group as an example, so Karont3) was still going to face Na`Vi for a chance at winning the group, playing that extra map would make sense - that would be like coming from the lower bracket, and the team who won the upper bracket (which Na`Vi did, x6tence did not) always gets an advantage.
The additional rule lets you lose two maps and still advance, it adds an hour+ to the schedule and it simple is not fair. It's perfectly normal that different matches are worth different amounts, e.g. normal upper bracket and lower bracket.
As far as travel goes, it makes little difference whether you fly somewhere to play two matches or three. Those teams hardly ever travel far away for tournaments anyways, the weakest teams in groups are almost always local teamss.
Best example:
At WCG Quiver Shoot-out 2009 in New York my team (EG) beat Gravitas 16-6 on de_inferno in the upper bracket and then lost to coL in the upper bracket finals on de_train. In lower bracket we lost against Gravitas on de_inferno, who then went on to lose against coL in the finals. Does that make double elimination unfair that we finished 1-1 in our head-to-head games but they placed better?
The additional rule lets you lose two maps and still advance, it adds an hour+ to the schedule and it simple is not fair. It's perfectly normal that different matches are worth different amounts, e.g. normal upper bracket and lower bracket.
As far as travel goes, it makes little difference whether you fly somewhere to play two matches or three. Those teams hardly ever travel far away for tournaments anyways, the weakest teams in groups are almost always local teamss.
Best example:
At WCG Quiver Shoot-out 2009 in New York my team (EG) beat Gravitas 16-6 on de_inferno in the upper bracket and then lost to coL in the upper bracket finals on de_train. In lower bracket we lost against Gravitas on de_inferno, who then went on to lose against coL in the finals. Does that make double elimination unfair that we finished 1-1 in our head-to-head games but they placed better?
2012-07-27 21:11:36
"If the bracket was played out and the team who finished second (let's take GameGune's B group as an example, so Karont3) was still going to face Na`Vi for a chance at winning the group, playing that extra map would make sense - that would be like coming from the lower bracket, and the team who won the upper bracket (which Na`Vi did, x6tence did not) always gets an advantage."
So they would only play to decide who ends on the first and who on the second place? Don't think that's necessary, since the playoffs are played with a upper- and a lower-bracket and all games are BO3. My suggestion is about something more important: Who get's the chance to play in the payoffs. The most important thing of the group-stage-system is the picking out of the best teams. Instead of an additional match which makes the decision between #1 and #2 more evident, I prefer an additional map when it comes to the question who drops out of the tournament and who reaches the playoffs.
"The additional rule lets you lose two maps and still advance,"
You would have lost a BO1 against the first seeded team and won a BO3 against the 2nd or 3rd seeded team, which won against the 4d seeded team. Don't see something wrong about that.
"it adds an hour+ to the schedule"
Oh please. As long as tournament hosts aren't able to manage their time schedule properly (even though some of them got 12 years of experience; hi @ Turtle Entertainment and Garfield) I don't want to hear a fucking word about "time schedule can't handle one additional map". Like you're going to a football game, you've to wait four fucking hours in the stadium till the match starts and after 90 minutes and a 2:2 score the game ends without playing the additional time ...
"and it simple is not fair. "
Why?
"It's perfectly normal that different matches are worth different amounts, e.g. normal upper bracket and lower bracket."
So what about the the team joining the Grand Final from the upper-bracket? It only has to win 1 map while his opponents needs 2.
But we got a different situation here anyway:
We're talking about a group-stage with very small groups and BO1 games. It's about making a close decision more accurate by going from a BO1 to a BO3 (if the teams haven't played against before, a BO1 would be enough).
Those are important decisions and therefor worth the time of an additional map.
"Those teams hardly ever travel far away for tournaments anyways, the weakest teams in groups are almost always local teams."
We're talking about 2nd and 3rd seeded teams. No offense, but this could have been one of your past teams.
"At WCG Quiver Shoot-out 2009 in New York my team (EG) beat Gravitas 16-6 on de_inferno in the upper bracket and then lost to coL in the upper bracket finals on de_train. In lower bracket we lost against Gravitas on de_inferno, who then went on to lose against coL in the finals. Does that make double elimination unfair that we finished 1-1 in our head-to-head games but they placed better?"
IMO it's just stupid. But playoffs (especially the upper-bracket) should be played in BO3 games anyway.
Post edited 2012-07-27 22:00:33
So they would only play to decide who ends on the first and who on the second place? Don't think that's necessary, since the playoffs are played with a upper- and a lower-bracket and all games are BO3. My suggestion is about something more important: Who get's the chance to play in the payoffs. The most important thing of the group-stage-system is the picking out of the best teams. Instead of an additional match which makes the decision between #1 and #2 more evident, I prefer an additional map when it comes to the question who drops out of the tournament and who reaches the playoffs.
"The additional rule lets you lose two maps and still advance,"
You would have lost a BO1 against the first seeded team and won a BO3 against the 2nd or 3rd seeded team, which won against the 4d seeded team. Don't see something wrong about that.
"it adds an hour+ to the schedule"
Oh please. As long as tournament hosts aren't able to manage their time schedule properly (even though some of them got 12 years of experience; hi @ Turtle Entertainment and Garfield) I don't want to hear a fucking word about "time schedule can't handle one additional map". Like you're going to a football game, you've to wait four fucking hours in the stadium till the match starts and after 90 minutes and a 2:2 score the game ends without playing the additional time ...
"and it simple is not fair. "
Why?
"It's perfectly normal that different matches are worth different amounts, e.g. normal upper bracket and lower bracket."
So what about the the team joining the Grand Final from the upper-bracket? It only has to win 1 map while his opponents needs 2.
But we got a different situation here anyway:
We're talking about a group-stage with very small groups and BO1 games. It's about making a close decision more accurate by going from a BO1 to a BO3 (if the teams haven't played against before, a BO1 would be enough).
Those are important decisions and therefor worth the time of an additional map.
"Those teams hardly ever travel far away for tournaments anyways, the weakest teams in groups are almost always local teams."
We're talking about 2nd and 3rd seeded teams. No offense, but this could have been one of your past teams.
"At WCG Quiver Shoot-out 2009 in New York my team (EG) beat Gravitas 16-6 on de_inferno in the upper bracket and then lost to coL in the upper bracket finals on de_train. In lower bracket we lost against Gravitas on de_inferno, who then went on to lose against coL in the finals. Does that make double elimination unfair that we finished 1-1 in our head-to-head games but they placed better?"
IMO it's just stupid. But playoffs (especially the upper-bracket) should be played in BO3 games anyway.
Post edited 2012-07-27 22:00:33
2012-07-27 21:55:11
"I prefer an additional map when it comes to the question who drops out of the tournament and who reaches the playoffs."
- it's not about what you prefer though, here is what no one understands: this "group", is effectively NO LONGER A GROUP. it's a bracket within a group. therefore the bo3 makes no sense, why would karont3 have to beat x6tence twice? that's not how double elimination works (outside of mlg where i'm told they use "extended series")
"You would have lost a BO1 against the first seeded team and won a BO3 against the 2nd or 3rd seeded team, which won against the 4d seeded team. Don't see something wrong about that."
- it's not a best-of-three though, it's two separate matches that have nothing at all to do with each other
"Oh please. As long as tournament hosts still aren't able to manage their time schedule properly (even though we got now 12 years of exprience, hi @ Turtle Entertainment and Garfield) I don't want to hear a fucking word about "time schedule can't handle one additional map". Like you're going to a football game, you've to wait four fucking hours in the stadium till the match starts and after 90 minutes and a 2:2 score the game ends without playing the additional time ..."
- if you haven't noticed yet, in esports people don't have the budgets of real sports where things can start on the stadium whenever, there are no technical difficulties in real sports (unless something like a power outage happens, like in one of the stanley cup finals a few decades ago which DID stop the game for over an hour). gamegune was already delayed by HOURS, you want to add 2-3 more hours to those delays? and more importantly, do you think the organizers want to?
"Why?"
- the second match is more valuable, just like in lower bracket. i have no idea why you are connecting the matches to one another, they are two completely separate events, just like in my example. the last match is what determines it all
"So what about the the team joining the Grand Final from the upper-bracket? It only has to win 1 map while his opponents needs 2."
- that would be the case if the winner of the "knock out match" (karont3) would still get a chance to face na`vi for the first place in the group (which would be the final of that bracket), but that match isn't played sso there is no need for it.
"But we got an total different situation here anyway:
We're talking about a group-stage with very small groups and BO1 games. It's about making a close decision more accurate by going from a BO1 to a BO3 (if the teams haven't played against before, a BO1 would be enough).
Those are important decisions and therefor worth the time of an additional map."
- if you prefer best-of-three (as most people do) you could make all groups best-of-three as well, but tournaments simply don't have time for it. adding a map which makes it unfair is not cool, but you could make the final match best-of-three (disregarding the earlier result completely), although that would be weird if the entire group wasn't bo3. you can't give x6tence any extra points for beating karont3 earlier in the tournament.
what you are essentially doing, is saying that because (hypothetical, too lazy to look up the stats) the detroit red wings went 3-0 against the pittsburgh penguins in the regular season, they would get to start the stanley cup finals up 3-0 in a best of seven. why would it work that way? earlier matches in the tournament do not matter.
"We're talking about 2nd and 3rd seeded teams. No offense, but this could have been one of your past teams."
- what are you talking about? the second and third seeded teams are the ones who get to play three matches, just like in a regular four team round robin format. they get to play just as much, except likely versus stronger competition which is better.
"IMO it's just stupid. But playoffs (especially the upper-bracket) should be played in BO3 games anyway."
- that's not stupid, that is how double elimination works. best-of-three is better, but why wouldn't the better team win even in one map? i honestly don't think best-of-one is nearly as bad as more people make it out to be, if you're better, you should win in one map as well.
food for thought:
obviously this format seems worse at a tournament like gamegune which has 3 top teams, 3 good teams, around 6 average teams and then teams with no chance, because no one has a legitimate chance to upset #1 seed, but in a tournament like IEM it would make sense to everyone i think, because getting to play for the first place in the group would actually be a reward.
Post edited 2012-07-27 23:05:34
- it's not about what you prefer though, here is what no one understands: this "group", is effectively NO LONGER A GROUP. it's a bracket within a group. therefore the bo3 makes no sense, why would karont3 have to beat x6tence twice? that's not how double elimination works (outside of mlg where i'm told they use "extended series")
"You would have lost a BO1 against the first seeded team and won a BO3 against the 2nd or 3rd seeded team, which won against the 4d seeded team. Don't see something wrong about that."
- it's not a best-of-three though, it's two separate matches that have nothing at all to do with each other
"Oh please. As long as tournament hosts still aren't able to manage their time schedule properly (even though we got now 12 years of exprience, hi @ Turtle Entertainment and Garfield) I don't want to hear a fucking word about "time schedule can't handle one additional map". Like you're going to a football game, you've to wait four fucking hours in the stadium till the match starts and after 90 minutes and a 2:2 score the game ends without playing the additional time ..."
- if you haven't noticed yet, in esports people don't have the budgets of real sports where things can start on the stadium whenever, there are no technical difficulties in real sports (unless something like a power outage happens, like in one of the stanley cup finals a few decades ago which DID stop the game for over an hour). gamegune was already delayed by HOURS, you want to add 2-3 more hours to those delays? and more importantly, do you think the organizers want to?
"Why?"
- the second match is more valuable, just like in lower bracket. i have no idea why you are connecting the matches to one another, they are two completely separate events, just like in my example. the last match is what determines it all
"So what about the the team joining the Grand Final from the upper-bracket? It only has to win 1 map while his opponents needs 2."
- that would be the case if the winner of the "knock out match" (karont3) would still get a chance to face na`vi for the first place in the group (which would be the final of that bracket), but that match isn't played sso there is no need for it.
"But we got an total different situation here anyway:
We're talking about a group-stage with very small groups and BO1 games. It's about making a close decision more accurate by going from a BO1 to a BO3 (if the teams haven't played against before, a BO1 would be enough).
Those are important decisions and therefor worth the time of an additional map."
- if you prefer best-of-three (as most people do) you could make all groups best-of-three as well, but tournaments simply don't have time for it. adding a map which makes it unfair is not cool, but you could make the final match best-of-three (disregarding the earlier result completely), although that would be weird if the entire group wasn't bo3. you can't give x6tence any extra points for beating karont3 earlier in the tournament.
what you are essentially doing, is saying that because (hypothetical, too lazy to look up the stats) the detroit red wings went 3-0 against the pittsburgh penguins in the regular season, they would get to start the stanley cup finals up 3-0 in a best of seven. why would it work that way? earlier matches in the tournament do not matter.
"We're talking about 2nd and 3rd seeded teams. No offense, but this could have been one of your past teams."
- what are you talking about? the second and third seeded teams are the ones who get to play three matches, just like in a regular four team round robin format. they get to play just as much, except likely versus stronger competition which is better.
"IMO it's just stupid. But playoffs (especially the upper-bracket) should be played in BO3 games anyway."
- that's not stupid, that is how double elimination works. best-of-three is better, but why wouldn't the better team win even in one map? i honestly don't think best-of-one is nearly as bad as more people make it out to be, if you're better, you should win in one map as well.
food for thought:
obviously this format seems worse at a tournament like gamegune which has 3 top teams, 3 good teams, around 6 average teams and then teams with no chance, because no one has a legitimate chance to upset #1 seed, but in a tournament like IEM it would make sense to everyone i think, because getting to play for the first place in the group would actually be a reward.
Post edited 2012-07-27 23:05:34
2012-07-27 23:00:19
"it's not about what you prefer though, here is what no one understands: this "group", is effectively NO LONGER A GROUP. it's a bracket within a group. therefore the bo3 makes no sense, why would karont3 have to beat x6tence twice? that's not how double elimination works (outside of mlg where i'm told they use "extended series")"
Yes, that wouldn't be a classic double elimination. So what? Even though we got a new system now, it's still a "group stage". The goal is still the same: Picking out the best teams for the playoffs.
"it's not a best-of-three though, it's two separate matches that have nothing at all to do with each other"
Now you're nit-picking. That's like saying the BO3 in the Grand Final isn't a "real BO3" anymore since one team already got 1 point before it even starts. What I just called a BO3 includes only points made between the same opponents, so from that point of view it's even closer to a "normal" BO3. Anyway, that's not relevant. Call it whatever you want. I was just pointing out that even if the winner lost two maps, he still deserves to reach the playoffs.
"- if you haven't noticed yet, in esports people don't have the budgets of real sports where things can start on the stadium whenever, there are no technical difficulties in real sports (unless something like a power outage happens, like in one of the stanley cup finals a few decades ago which DID stop the game for over an hour)."
Yeah, that was a stupid example. But coming from a professional career in one of the poorest sports where hosting tournaments needs a lot (!) of preparation/work and where most people work without getting any money at all, I still think a 4h delay in an esport tournament isn't "acceptable".
"gamegune was already delayed by HOURS, you want to add 2-3 more hours to those delays? and more importantly, do you think the organizers want to?"
I don't want to blame anyone. I was just saying that playing two maps more or less isn't what should be focused first when it comes to improve the time management. If there wouldn't have been all those troubles, those maps would have fit perfectly into the time schedule.
"- the second match is more valuable, just like in lower bracket. i have no idea why you are connecting the matches to one another, they are two completely separate events, just like in my example. the last match is what determines it all"
I totally understand you. The thing is: It's still a BO1 played "group stage" and most fans don't understand it when their favorite team drops out of the tournament by losing 1 map against an opponent they just beat before.
"- that would be the case if the winner of the "knock out match" (karont3) would still get a chance to face na`vi for the first place in the group (which would be the final of that bracket), but that match isn't played sso there is no need for it."
I got that comparison. I was just pointing out that it's not that unusual to include previous results in further decisions.
"- if you prefer best-of-three (as most people do) you could make all groups best-of-three as well, but tournaments simply don't have time for it. "
Totally understand that.
"adding a map which makes it unfair is not cool.... you can't give x6tence any extra points for beating karont3 earlier in the tournament."
Still don't see why that's unfair, it just makes the first game more important.
", but you could make the final match best-of-three (disregarding the earlier result completely)"
Even though that would probably mean 2 more maps, I would still prefer it.
"what you are essentially doing.."
No. I'm just giving the group-stage something back what makes it a group-stage.
ps: I've no idea about American sports.
"- what are you talking about?"
I was just pointing out that the 2nd and 3rd seeded teams aren't "just local teams".
"that's not stupid, that is how double elimination works."
Yes, but that's not the best way to use a BO1-double-elimination system in the group stage.
"est-of-three is better, but why wouldn't the better team win even in one map?"
Ask Navi :D
That's a classic statistic thing: The more matches are played the better you see the quality difference of the teams.
To bring this to an end: I like the new system and I think it's a real improvement. Still I would prefer a better way to decide who gets the second playoff spot, when two teams are meeting twice.
Post edited 2012-07-28 00:10:57
Yes, that wouldn't be a classic double elimination. So what? Even though we got a new system now, it's still a "group stage". The goal is still the same: Picking out the best teams for the playoffs.
"it's not a best-of-three though, it's two separate matches that have nothing at all to do with each other"
Now you're nit-picking. That's like saying the BO3 in the Grand Final isn't a "real BO3" anymore since one team already got 1 point before it even starts. What I just called a BO3 includes only points made between the same opponents, so from that point of view it's even closer to a "normal" BO3. Anyway, that's not relevant. Call it whatever you want. I was just pointing out that even if the winner lost two maps, he still deserves to reach the playoffs.
"- if you haven't noticed yet, in esports people don't have the budgets of real sports where things can start on the stadium whenever, there are no technical difficulties in real sports (unless something like a power outage happens, like in one of the stanley cup finals a few decades ago which DID stop the game for over an hour)."
Yeah, that was a stupid example. But coming from a professional career in one of the poorest sports where hosting tournaments needs a lot (!) of preparation/work and where most people work without getting any money at all, I still think a 4h delay in an esport tournament isn't "acceptable".
"gamegune was already delayed by HOURS, you want to add 2-3 more hours to those delays? and more importantly, do you think the organizers want to?"
I don't want to blame anyone. I was just saying that playing two maps more or less isn't what should be focused first when it comes to improve the time management. If there wouldn't have been all those troubles, those maps would have fit perfectly into the time schedule.
"- the second match is more valuable, just like in lower bracket. i have no idea why you are connecting the matches to one another, they are two completely separate events, just like in my example. the last match is what determines it all"
I totally understand you. The thing is: It's still a BO1 played "group stage" and most fans don't understand it when their favorite team drops out of the tournament by losing 1 map against an opponent they just beat before.
"- that would be the case if the winner of the "knock out match" (karont3) would still get a chance to face na`vi for the first place in the group (which would be the final of that bracket), but that match isn't played sso there is no need for it."
I got that comparison. I was just pointing out that it's not that unusual to include previous results in further decisions.
"- if you prefer best-of-three (as most people do) you could make all groups best-of-three as well, but tournaments simply don't have time for it. "
Totally understand that.
"adding a map which makes it unfair is not cool.... you can't give x6tence any extra points for beating karont3 earlier in the tournament."
Still don't see why that's unfair, it just makes the first game more important.
", but you could make the final match best-of-three (disregarding the earlier result completely)"
Even though that would probably mean 2 more maps, I would still prefer it.
"what you are essentially doing.."
No. I'm just giving the group-stage something back what makes it a group-stage.
ps: I've no idea about American sports.
"- what are you talking about?"
I was just pointing out that the 2nd and 3rd seeded teams aren't "just local teams".
"that's not stupid, that is how double elimination works."
Yes, but that's not the best way to use a BO1-double-elimination system in the group stage.
"est-of-three is better, but why wouldn't the better team win even in one map?"
Ask Navi :D
That's a classic statistic thing: The more matches are played the better you see the quality difference of the teams.
To bring this to an end: I like the new system and I think it's a real improvement. Still I would prefer a better way to decide who gets the second playoff spot, when two teams are meeting twice.
Post edited 2012-07-28 00:10:57
2012-07-28 00:06:15
you still missed the most important factors:
1) they are two different matches, had miticos beaten karont3, why would it be enough for them to beat x6tence once but karont3 would need to do it twice? you have to understand this is NOT a round robin, it's a bracket.
2) you keep saying delays aren't acceptable, they shouldn't happen, can't be hard to prevent and all this stuff, but the fact is i've been to and followed countless events and they always do happen, and the organizers have to prepare for it the best they can
3) "obviously this format seems worse at a tournament like gamegune which has 3 top teams, 3 good teams, around 6 average teams and then teams with no chance, because no one has a legitimate chance to upset #1 seed, but in a tournament like IEM it would make sense to everyone i think, because getting to play for the first place in the group would actually be a reward."
of course the better team wins more likely if you include more and more matches, but why do they need multiple ones to win? imo the olympics in hockey (best-of-one) and the nfl playoffs (best-of-one) are actually MORE interesting to watch than nhl playoffs (best-of-seven) because every match has immense value.
when you watch a best-of-three between two top teams, you can almost always count on it to go down to the third map, which means the first two maps were completely useless in determining who was the better team. na`vi has lost because of de_nuke, not because of best-of-one.
1) they are two different matches, had miticos beaten karont3, why would it be enough for them to beat x6tence once but karont3 would need to do it twice? you have to understand this is NOT a round robin, it's a bracket.
2) you keep saying delays aren't acceptable, they shouldn't happen, can't be hard to prevent and all this stuff, but the fact is i've been to and followed countless events and they always do happen, and the organizers have to prepare for it the best they can
3) "obviously this format seems worse at a tournament like gamegune which has 3 top teams, 3 good teams, around 6 average teams and then teams with no chance, because no one has a legitimate chance to upset #1 seed, but in a tournament like IEM it would make sense to everyone i think, because getting to play for the first place in the group would actually be a reward."
of course the better team wins more likely if you include more and more matches, but why do they need multiple ones to win? imo the olympics in hockey (best-of-one) and the nfl playoffs (best-of-one) are actually MORE interesting to watch than nhl playoffs (best-of-seven) because every match has immense value.
when you watch a best-of-three between two top teams, you can almost always count on it to go down to the third map, which means the first two maps were completely useless in determining who was the better team. na`vi has lost because of de_nuke, not because of best-of-one.
2012-07-28 00:25:10
"1) they are two different matches, had miticos beaten karont3, why would it be enough for them to beat x6tence once but karont3 would need to do it twice? you have to understand this is NOT a round robin, it's a bracket."
Yes, this sounds unfair. But if we think about the goal of the whole group stage thing, it's still somehow "fair":
In your scenario, miticos lost against the team that ended on the first place and beat the the team which ended up on the third and fourth place. It pretty clear who's the second best team of the group. No what really happened: karont3 lost against the winner of the group and "tied up" with the third placed team. In this case the question of "who's the second best team of the group" isn't that clear.
And yes, I totally the principles of a classic double elimination. In my opinion it's just not the best format for a group stage. It's very efficient but it would fit better to the function of the group stage if it would be tweaked the way I mentioned.
"you keep saying delays aren't acceptable,"
Some small delays are acceptable. But when a big organisation like turtle entertainment got a 2.5 hours delay, even though they only invited 2 teams to the lan final, they got 10 years of experience and they're doing it in their own studios where they work every day, I'm getting mad. Especially if I have to pay to watch it on a normal resolution and I could have done way better things in that time (like working so I wouldn't have to compensate those hours).
Normally I don't blame anyone who's doing something good for the esport.
Btw: Afaik it's you who brought this new tournament format into CS world and IMO it's nice improvement. Good job.
Post edited 2012-07-28 01:17:17
2012-07-28 01:12:28
do you not understand the premise that each match is not equal? you keep ignoring the most important part about this, too, let's try if the third time works:
"obviously this format seems worse at a tournament like gamegune which has 3 top teams, 3 good teams, around 6 average teams and then teams with no chance, because no one has a legitimate chance to upset #1 seed, but in a tournament like IEM it would make sense to everyone i think, because getting to play for the first place in the group would actually be a reward."
your system makes no sense, this is a double elimination BRACKET, not a round robin.
"obviously this format seems worse at a tournament like gamegune which has 3 top teams, 3 good teams, around 6 average teams and then teams with no chance, because no one has a legitimate chance to upset #1 seed, but in a tournament like IEM it would make sense to everyone i think, because getting to play for the first place in the group would actually be a reward."
your system makes no sense, this is a double elimination BRACKET, not a round robin.
2012-07-28 01:16:32
Yes I've always understood it. The thing is:
In my opinion a classic BO1 double elimination isn't what fits the best to the group stage.
I still prefer it over a round robin format, but IMO there are some tweaks necessary to ensure the function of a group stage.
Yes, if the teams are pretty much on the same level, the system "works better", but what if that's not the case?
In my opinion a classic BO1 double elimination isn't what fits the best to the group stage.
I still prefer it over a round robin format, but IMO there are some tweaks necessary to ensure the function of a group stage.
Yes, if the teams are pretty much on the same level, the system "works better", but what if that's not the case?
2012-07-28 01:22:52
it doesn't matter, because the fact that you agree it's more even then proves the point - the main point in your argument was that x6tence got raped by na`vi and karont3 had a free win in lb. in any other group it wouldn't be like that.
adding an extra match wouldn't be fair to karont3, so your "tweak" would actually fuck it up completely.
adding an extra match wouldn't be fair to karont3, so your "tweak" would actually fuck it up completely.
2012-07-28 01:28:02
"it doesn't matter, because the fact that you agree it's more even then proves the point - the main point in your argument was that x6tence got raped by na`vi and karont3 had a free win in lb. in any other group it wouldn't be like that."
Huh? So because there was only one group with "that problem" the problem is non-existent?
"adding an extra match wouldn't be fair to karont3, so your "tweak" would actually fuck it up completely."
How would that have been unfair? I don't see some missing fairness in making their first loss relevant for the final outcome.
It just wouldn't be a classic double elimination anymore.
Seems like we got different ideas of what's "fair" and what's not, and what's the sense of having a group stage.
Post edited 2012-07-28 01:45:19
Huh? So because there was only one group with "that problem" the problem is non-existent?
"adding an extra match wouldn't be fair to karont3, so your "tweak" would actually fuck it up completely."
How would that have been unfair? I don't see some missing fairness in making their first loss relevant for the final outcome.
It just wouldn't be a classic double elimination anymore.
Seems like we got different ideas of what's "fair" and what's not, and what's the sense of having a group stage.
Post edited 2012-07-28 01:45:19
2012-07-28 01:44:44
if you think double elimination isn't fair then we can end the discussion right now because double elim has been deemed THE fairest option by everyone, but you don't think it's fair because teams can end up 1-1 and one will place better than them? that makes no sense.
if na`vi beats esc tomorrow in the upper bracket semi-finals but esc beats na`vi in lower bracket, is that un fair to na`vi because they will place 3rd and esc will make top2 even though they are tied 1-1?
the point of having a group stage is to get rid of teams before playoffs.
if na`vi beats esc tomorrow in the upper bracket semi-finals but esc beats na`vi in lower bracket, is that un fair to na`vi because they will place 3rd and esc will make top2 even though they are tied 1-1?
the point of having a group stage is to get rid of teams before playoffs.
2012-07-28 01:50:16
I just think a double elimination played in BO1 matches isn't the best thing to pick out the best two teams of each group.
It's all about the group stage and its function. When it comes to the playoffs double elimination is by far the best format. I don't have any problem with the example you mentioned.
"the point of having a group stage is to get rid of teams before playoffs."
Ha! I knew you would say that. In my opinion it's not about getting rid of some teams as fast as possible, it's about getting the best teams out of many.
That's why we got different views.
Post edited 2012-07-28 01:59:22
It's all about the group stage and its function. When it comes to the playoffs double elimination is by far the best format. I don't have any problem with the example you mentioned.
"the point of having a group stage is to get rid of teams before playoffs."
Ha! I knew you would say that. In my opinion it's not about getting rid of some teams as fast as possible, it's about getting the best teams out of many.
That's why we got different views.
Post edited 2012-07-28 01:59:22
2012-07-28 01:58:31
so why is double elimination different if it's among four teams in a group or in the playoffs among 8 or 16 teams? you don't even understand how much your logic fails, it functions the same. the format doesn't care if teams "tie 1-1", it still works the same.
2012-07-28 02:28:54
Because in some cases (like the one we were talking about) it doesn't make clear which two teams are the best of their group.
Even though I'm cheering for karont3, it still doesn't feel right to say: They were the better team. It feels like they tied up.
The playoffs are a different story. There's no need to get an exact ranking of all teams which participated. It's enough to know team X ended somewhere between rank 8 and rank 12.
Post edited 2012-07-28 02:43:24
Even though I'm cheering for karont3, it still doesn't feel right to say: They were the better team. It feels like they tied up.
The playoffs are a different story. There's no need to get an exact ranking of all teams which participated. It's enough to know team X ended somewhere between rank 8 and rank 12.
Post edited 2012-07-28 02:43:24
2012-07-28 02:39:26
so it's not important whether na`vi or esc (in this scenario where fnatic beats both) goes to the grand final, it's all the same so it doesn't matter?
you make so little sense, lol.
it makes perfect sense in the group stage - if you win first match, you only have to win one more to advance. if you lose, you have to win two more matches.
all you have to do is understand the two matches that might happen between the same teams have *drumroll* NOTHING to do with each other.
you make so little sense, lol.
it makes perfect sense in the group stage - if you win first match, you only have to win one more to advance. if you lose, you have to win two more matches.
all you have to do is understand the two matches that might happen between the same teams have *drumroll* NOTHING to do with each other.
2012-07-28 02:44:41
"so it's not important whether na`vi or esc (in this scenario where fnatic beats both) goes to the grand final, it's all the same so it doesn't matter?"
Hu? Of course it does. They will decide this in a nice BO3. I just don't care where exactly between the 8 and the 12 rank Entinity ended. It just doesn't matter. But I would like to see the best teams reaching the playoffs.
"all you have to do is understand the two matches that might happen between the same teams have *drumroll* NOTHING to do with each other."
I understand this. I just don't think a BO1 where the winner may just have lost a BO1 against the loser some hours before is a good way to find out which is the second best team of the group.
Post edited 2012-07-28 02:57:44
Hu? Of course it does. They will decide this in a nice BO3. I just don't care where exactly between the 8 and the 12 rank Entinity ended. It just doesn't matter. But I would like to see the best teams reaching the playoffs.
"all you have to do is understand the two matches that might happen between the same teams have *drumroll* NOTHING to do with each other."
I understand this. I just don't think a BO1 where the winner may just have lost a BO1 against the loser some hours before is a good way to find out which is the second best team of the group.
Post edited 2012-07-28 02:57:44
2012-07-28 02:56:54
so hypothetically if na`vi beats esc (and fnatic beats both and neither gets upset in LB), you think it's unfair that if esc beats na`vi in LB they will guaranteed top two and na`vi will be 3rd?
why would the best teams not reach the playoffs? karont3 beat x6tence when it mattered the most, so they are better. similar to how we value esc winning iem 6 wc more than we will value whoever wins gamegune (and the former paid 3x more money), it pays to win when it MATTERS.
or are you gonna tell me you don't care who places 3rd and 2nd/potentially 1st either and it's all about who makes it out of a group stage (which is actually a bracket, just called a group because it's a bracket of four teams and there's many of them)
Post edited 2012-07-28 03:00:20
why would the best teams not reach the playoffs? karont3 beat x6tence when it mattered the most, so they are better. similar to how we value esc winning iem 6 wc more than we will value whoever wins gamegune (and the former paid 3x more money), it pays to win when it MATTERS.
or are you gonna tell me you don't care who places 3rd and 2nd/potentially 1st either and it's all about who makes it out of a group stage (which is actually a bracket, just called a group because it's a bracket of four teams and there's many of them)
Post edited 2012-07-28 03:00:20
2012-07-28 02:59:16
"so hypothetically if na`vi beats esc (and fnatic beats both and neither gets upset in LB), you think it's unfair that if esc beats na`vi in LB they will guaranteed top two and na`vi will be 3rd?"
Ah, now I understand what you're on to.
Of course I care who places 3rd and 2nd/potentially 1st. It may sound stupid, but the only reason why I don't have a problem with such a scenario is the fact that it's a BO3 (even though their first meet-up was a BO3 too). I just don't like BO1 when it comes to important decisions. Playing train, making one stupid mistake in CT pistolround, winning 4rd round, losing 5th round and it's all on the damn T pistolround. Just doesn't feel right.
But yeah you're right. Basically it's the same.
Post edited 2012-07-28 03:13:17
Ah, now I understand what you're on to.
Of course I care who places 3rd and 2nd/potentially 1st. It may sound stupid, but the only reason why I don't have a problem with such a scenario is the fact that it's a BO3 (even though their first meet-up was a BO3 too). I just don't like BO1 when it comes to important decisions. Playing train, making one stupid mistake in CT pistolround, winning 4rd round, losing 5th round and it's all on the damn T pistolround. Just doesn't feel right.
But yeah you're right. Basically it's the same.
Post edited 2012-07-28 03:13:17
2012-07-28 03:12:00
not just basically, it IS the same. you are also comparing the best case scenario of round robin to the worst case scenario of this format. let's compare worst to worst.
imagine you are x6tence in both of these scenarios, since obviously that's where this problem comes from, angry x6tence fans who think they should have advanced over karont3 (which they should not have because they lost the deciding match)
option #1 - round robin:
fnatic vs x6tence 16-11
x6tence vs karont3 16-13
fnatic vs karont3 14-16
(rest of the matches no dot matter, let's just say all of them beat the bad team 30-0 because the rounds do not count towards round difference in any case)
rankings:
#1 fnatic 6p, +4
#2 karont3 6p, -1
#3 x6tence 6p, -2
#4 baddie 0p, -90
in this scenario anyone could have played the other team on any map, and if you're x6tence in the final round (playing the bad team), you have ZERO control over your tournament life.
option #2 - new system
in the new system x6tence is FULLY AWARE that to stay in the tournament, they have to beat karont3 in the last match.
how is option #1 possibly better?
imagine you are x6tence in both of these scenarios, since obviously that's where this problem comes from, angry x6tence fans who think they should have advanced over karont3 (which they should not have because they lost the deciding match)
option #1 - round robin:
fnatic vs x6tence 16-11
x6tence vs karont3 16-13
fnatic vs karont3 14-16
(rest of the matches no dot matter, let's just say all of them beat the bad team 30-0 because the rounds do not count towards round difference in any case)
rankings:
#1 fnatic 6p, +4
#2 karont3 6p, -1
#3 x6tence 6p, -2
#4 baddie 0p, -90
in this scenario anyone could have played the other team on any map, and if you're x6tence in the final round (playing the bad team), you have ZERO control over your tournament life.
option #2 - new system
in the new system x6tence is FULLY AWARE that to stay in the tournament, they have to beat karont3 in the last match.
how is option #1 possibly better?
2012-07-28 03:21:53
Huh? I never said something about the old "round robin" system. I always said I prefer the new system over the old one. In fact: I always hated the round robin system and your example perfectly demonstrates why.
I just wish the last game of such a "group bracket", where the loser drops out of the tournament and the winner joins the playoffs, would be more than just a BO1, especially if two teams meet again.
Just imagine the GG would have been a big tournament somewhere in Asia or the USA. It wouldn't feel right to see x6tence dropping out that way (winning a BO1 against k3, losing against the almost unbeatable Navi and losing a BO1 against k3). Taking one week of vacation (only 3 left that year), traveling on the other side of the planet and dropping out of the tournament because of one BO1. Just doesn't feel right.
And as I already said: I'm cheering for karont3.
Post edited 2012-07-28 03:36:33
I just wish the last game of such a "group bracket", where the loser drops out of the tournament and the winner joins the playoffs, would be more than just a BO1, especially if two teams meet again.
Just imagine the GG would have been a big tournament somewhere in Asia or the USA. It wouldn't feel right to see x6tence dropping out that way (winning a BO1 against k3, losing against the almost unbeatable Navi and losing a BO1 against k3). Taking one week of vacation (only 3 left that year), traveling on the other side of the planet and dropping out of the tournament because of one BO1. Just doesn't feel right.
And as I already said: I'm cheering for karont3.
Post edited 2012-07-28 03:36:33
2012-07-28 03:35:53
yes it would have, they beat k3 in the opening match and only needed one more win to advance, be it versus na`vi or karont3. they failed when it mattered the most, in the knockout game, and do not deserve to advance.
i really do not, at all, understand this part where you feel bad for teams, if they can't win they don't deserve to advance. if karont3 won the match which both teams KNEW was the deciding factor, they for sure deserved to advance over x6tence.
i really do not, at all, understand this part where you feel bad for teams, if they can't win they don't deserve to advance. if karont3 won the match which both teams KNEW was the deciding factor, they for sure deserved to advance over x6tence.
2012-07-28 10:57:05
Like I said in my earlier post (#126) the issues that you discuss (especially in "iv") are not solved with this system.
Reiterating what I said earlier, the first match does not matter - teams can throw it if they wish because winning it means a default loss afterwards and losing it means a free win anyway. This puts both teams at 1-1.
k1ck and DELTA play each other. It does not matter who wins because the winner will play vs fnatic (default loss for both teams in question) while loser will play vs random French team (default win for both teams in question). So it all comes down to match #5.
I like this system. I think it is inherently good. It works fine in things like GSL because players are evenly matched and they pick who they play. But it is inappropriate for a tournament like GameGune where you use seeding and these is a large discrepancy in skill between the teams.
Reiterating what I said earlier, the first match does not matter - teams can throw it if they wish because winning it means a default loss afterwards and losing it means a free win anyway. This puts both teams at 1-1.
k1ck and DELTA play each other. It does not matter who wins because the winner will play vs fnatic (default loss for both teams in question) while loser will play vs random French team (default win for both teams in question). So it all comes down to match #5.
I like this system. I think it is inherently good. It works fine in things like GSL because players are evenly matched and they pick who they play. But it is inappropriate for a tournament like GameGune where you use seeding and these is a large discrepancy in skill between the teams.
2012-07-28 15:06:09
My system:
* Knock-Out from start
* Single elimination (mean without lower bracket etc.)
* BO3 in all matches, except final and 3rd place decider - BO5
Even this system is not perfect, but it's a little better than this at GameGune ..
* Knock-Out from start
* Single elimination (mean without lower bracket etc.)
* BO3 in all matches, except final and 3rd place decider - BO5
Even this system is not perfect, but it's a little better than this at GameGune ..
2012-07-27 22:21:45
You don't know it yet since you've never tried it so don't be so sure.
2012-07-27 23:47:18
that is horrible, way worse than game gune
imagine a group with two good teams and two horrible teams that ends up the two good teams playing each other. then one good team and one horrible team would make it past groups. for instance, suppose there was a group of
navi
fnatic
random shitty team #1
random shitty team #2
and first match up was navi vs. fnatic and randy#1 vs randy#2. then either navi or fnatic doesn't make it past groups because of your 'knock out from start single elimination' due to them having the first matchup, and some shitty team worse than both makes it out of the group
imagine a group with two good teams and two horrible teams that ends up the two good teams playing each other. then one good team and one horrible team would make it past groups. for instance, suppose there was a group of
navi
fnatic
random shitty team #1
random shitty team #2
and first match up was navi vs. fnatic and randy#1 vs randy#2. then either navi or fnatic doesn't make it past groups because of your 'knock out from start single elimination' due to them having the first matchup, and some shitty team worse than both makes it out of the group
2012-07-27 23:51:12
Well, you didn't get it. My system is without groups, and ofc. that good teams would face little bit low teams in first round, and then, only good teams will stay, no lower bracket .. but, however my system won't be system which will be played on some serious tournament so I dunno why I even write my opinion about playing system ..
2012-07-28 00:30:36
Apologies, you're right I didn't get it. I thought by replacing Lurppis' system you meant replace it with this for the group stage.
With the new view of it, I'd just suggest adding a lower bracket or choose the matchups based on ranking or something. Otherwise you could end up with a situation like Navi facing ESC in round one and the winner of that facing Fnatic in round two. Then you'd have two of the top three teams knocked out immediately when if they met later they could have won 1st-3rd. The nice thing about splitting it by ranking or adding a lower bracket is you don't have two top teams knocking each other out early on like that.
IMO the playoffs of Game Gune are perfect, double elim and bo3 matchups. If they skipped group and just loaded every team into a bracket like that, it would be better than the system you propose IMO
Post edited 2012-07-28 00:44:08
With the new view of it, I'd just suggest adding a lower bracket or choose the matchups based on ranking or something. Otherwise you could end up with a situation like Navi facing ESC in round one and the winner of that facing Fnatic in round two. Then you'd have two of the top three teams knocked out immediately when if they met later they could have won 1st-3rd. The nice thing about splitting it by ranking or adding a lower bracket is you don't have two top teams knocking each other out early on like that.
IMO the playoffs of Game Gune are perfect, double elim and bo3 matchups. If they skipped group and just loaded every team into a bracket like that, it would be better than the system you propose IMO
Post edited 2012-07-28 00:44:08
2012-07-28 00:42:06
fail lurppis \o
2012-07-28 00:28:56
fucking system - that's why tournament is so slow! don't like it, hope, its will be never used at such tournaments!!!
2012-07-28 01:32:08
such a fucking fail and turning something that was so easy and fast to something so fucking useless and boring as hell to watch. For fuck sake change that
2012-07-28 01:43:03
lol
sooo fair dude =)
znation played with xisco's team while pain had to play with ESC yeah! nice system bro =)
sooo fair dude =)
znation played with xisco's team while pain had to play with ESC yeah! nice system bro =)
2012-07-28 02:44:48
Worst rules ever, and I'm not even talking it because of paiN, they weren't suopposed to go to the playoffs anyway... the best and most fair is group with bo3 in each clash, the two best go to the playoffs, easy and fair.
2012-07-28 03:10:56
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.
