I have returned: StarCraft II

[quannum]

unless im missing something double elimination bo3 is the format for mlg yes? mma was eliminated once already, mvp wasn't. to win, mma has to eliminate mvp twice.

maybe my set math is wrong but bo7 is the same as bo3+bo3? the difference is that you need a possible tie-breaker match for bo3 + bo3 when both sets are played by same 2 people.

[Blarg]

for the sake of a compelling final I think it should be a straight up best of 5/7. Give the undefeated guy a 1 game advantage if you must but with the advantage what it currently is it makes the culmination of the entire tournament something that is somewhat predictable and possibly over in only 2 games.

[quannum]

that just makes things unfair for mvp. winning a bo3 isn't the same as a 1 game advantage.


i guess i wouldn't sacrifice fairness for a compelling final.

nasl could do it because it was single elim i think

[Not Kuno]

mlgpro.com is where MLG was streamed and all the vods will be at.

Ung. That site is so clunky and complicated. Where do I go when it shows up? And am I going to have to pay? Whatever happened to good ol' put everything on fucking youtube like TeamLiquid does.

[quannum]

don't think they're gonna release them

MLG will no longer be making replays of Tournament matches available to the public. We realize that this has been a popular feature, but unfortunately replay packs contain data which can be used to DDOS the player- and the event. Because of the volume of replays we have to process during an event, we are unable to strip that information out of the files before publication.

We realize that a large number of matches are played offstream at Pro Circuit Competitions. After MLG Anaheim, we will be sending replay packs out to selected groups of casters, so that these never-before-seen matches can be commentated and then released for everyone to see.

there's this thou
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8...10801at155.png

[Not Kuno]

I don't give a shit about getting the actual reply, I'm fine with watching commentary and shit on it. I just want to watch.

[Blarg]

the vods are accessed through the video player but you need to have paid for premium to access them. maybe they will open up for others later on but for now you will have had to paid for a silver or gold membership thing

[quannum]

spoilers prolly

Spoiler: show

[Deftscythe]

that just makes things unfair for mvp. winning a bo3 isn't the same as a 1 game advantage.


i guess i wouldn't sacrifice fairness for a compelling final.

nasl could do it because it was single elim i think

I don't agree that it's unfair to MVP. As I said in my spoiler above, MVP has already been rewarded by having to play two less Bo3s to get into the grand finals. He's going to be in a much better mental state and that's no small consideration in this game. In fact, I would argue it's unfair to MMA considering that, unlike in extended series, he gets disadvantaged in the final despite not having met MVP at all in the previous rounds.

[quannum]

I don't agree that it's unfair to MVP. As I said in my spoiler above, MVP has already been rewarded by having to play two less Bo3s to get into the grand finals. He's going to be in a much better mental state and that's no small consideration in this game. In fact, I would argue it's unfair to MMA considering that, unlike in extended series, he gets disadvantaged in the final despite not having met MVP at all in the previous rounds.

the point of double elim is to make sure the best player rises to the top, mvp having not lost a bo3 is the better player. mma should be at a disadvantage, he already lost a bo3.

you need to lose 2 bo3 sets to get knocked out. changing that for just 1 of the 2 competitors is going to be unfair

im just saying that the mlg format (double elim from b03) is fair, not that i like it or dislike it or that it does or doesn't culminate in more entertaining games.

[Deftscythe]

I don't agree that having not lost a Bo3 proves MVP is a better player than MMA. MMA and MVP faced different competition and never played each other in the rest of the tournament. If MVP is really the better player, then he shouldn't need any kind of edge over MMA to win. I think MMA having to play 3 extra Bo3s to get to the finals and then having to win 2 Bo3s in the finals is too much punishment for losing one series unless they changed the format to where the finals happen on a following day and are the only games that day.

I watched the EVO finals last night and I know they also have this same double-elim format, and I imagine that MLG's other games run this way too, but SC2 is just a different animal. Mental fatigue is a very real difficulty to overcome. MMA had just played two very stressful 30-minute games against Boxer while MVP had been able to rest and scout MMA's TvT since that afternoon.

[geno]

the point of double elim is to make sure the best player rises to the top, mvp having not lost a bo3 is the better player. mma should be at a disadvantage, he already lost a bo3.

you need to lose 2 bo3 sets to get knocked out. changing that for just 1 of the 2 competitors is going to be unfair

im just saying that the mlg format (double elim from b03) is fair, not that i like it or dislike it or that it does or doesn't culminate in more entertaining games.

This is kind of silly because no tournament format should be catered to "finding the best player." It should certainly be a consideration to avoid good players getting knocked out by flukes or cheeses or luck, but it should not be priority number one. Afterall, a tournament will never find the best player, it will only find the player that won the tournament. As a proof, consider the very obvious example: A ladder or mass gaming ELO system is going to very clearly be much better at finding a true skill ranking (if one can be found), but that is obviously not compelling to watch or feasible to achieve so its not incorporated into most tournament formats outside of the occasional qualifiers.

Instead, the goal of a tournament format should be to provide entertaining storylines and exciting gameplay. In aims of achieving this, MLG has put into place a rather unique pool play system that gives spectators just that right from day 1. But I think MLG's system is certainly not perfect. They may go too far towards pushing for exciting games one way, cconsidering the MASSIVE advantage a pool player has over an open bracket player, particularly one that has an unfortunate Bo3 loss early on. And then on the other end of the spectrum they favor format over gameplay with extended series stuff and Bo3 finals. Altogether the system I think isn't that much better or worse than alternatives, but the possibility (and in all honesty, likeliness) of a 2 to 3 game finals in most MLGs leaves much to be desired.

[quannum]

endurance is a part of the competition, it's not unfair as long as the opportunity is equal. if you space out the event, how long do you want it to take?

the format provides the endurance edge to the person who loses least and wins the fastest.

[Cheerios]

I'm not sure if this was mentioned earlier, but you can still watch other matches from the MLG stream instead of searching for Youtube vids.

http://pro.majorleaguegaming.com/live/starcraft_2_red

Just fast forward to whatever time to find a match. Boxer/Rain mech wars starts at about 3:30:00, but the match itself comes in at around 3:10:00

You'll have to watch that 15-30 second ad at the start, but it won't pop up again at all during your fast forwarding/rewinding.

[quannum]

As a proof, consider the very obvious example: A ladder or mass gaming ELO system is going to very clearly be much better at finding a true skill ranking (if one can be found), but that is obviously not compelling to watch or feasible to achieve so its not incorporated into most tournament formats outside of the occasional qualifiers.

points on the ladder boards finds the best player? nah

Instead, the goal of a tournament format should be to provide entertaining storylines and exciting gameplay.

again im not defending its entertainment value, im just repeating that a double elim tourn should be double elim consistently.

[Thunder]

points on the ladder boards finds the best player? nah

Would if everyone played consistently

[geno]

points on the ladder boards finds the best player? nah

Not the ladder, a ladder. A well run one, where everyone participates, and there are no external factors that would cause one player to fall ahead or behind another one. Ideally, it would be on a foundation of an ELO system and there would be little to no point inflation. It should find the better player in the same way a Bo3 finds the better player over a Bo1. The more games played, the more we have to judge the player on.
again im not defending it's entertainment value, im just repeating that a double elim tourn should be double elim consistently.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I get you. But they can keep double elim and still avoid a shitty Bo3 finals by simple making them Bo5s. Admittedly the loser bracket player will have had his first loss in a Bo3 while the upper bracket will have a Bo5 so not entirely fair, but I think I think its a lot more marginal than a lot of the other unfair parts of their tournament system they have structured in.

[quannum]

Would if everyone played consistently

just add in a fatigue system, duh

[geno]

For reference sake, the original TSL's from BW both used a lengthy ladder season to determine player pools and both resulted in I'd say very good representative snapshots of the current skill levels at the time (although not at the very top ranks where players stopped trying to progress because they had already secured spots).

[Deftscythe]

endurance is a part of the competition, it's not unfair as long as the opportunity is equal. if you space out the event, how long do you want it to take?

the format provides the endurance edge to the person who loses least and wins the fastest.

Just going to agree to disagree.