@TwinkCup2k16 Organizers, Myrm/Rules Committee

Laurenti

Legend
" Matches in both tournaments will be bo3 until the grand finals. The grand finals will be bo5 with the team from the loser's bracket starting 1 game down."

This needs to change, and is a truly awful way to finish a double elimination tournament. Having seen this format used in the 2014 arena tournament, warsong tournament, and the 2015 arena tournament, it was only a matter of time for a situation like this to occur.

"A double-elimination tournament is a type of elimination tournament competition in which a participant ceases to be eligible to win the tournament's championship upon having lost two games or matches. It stands in contrast to a single-elimination tournament, in which only one defeat results in elimination." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-elimination_tournament

In an ideal situation (and one that should definitely be used in future twink cups), for a team to be eliminated, they must lose two best of 3 series. This requires a team to lose four games over the course of their two elimination series.

Now, notice the way the challonge was set up. At the top of the challonge for the 2015 twink cup, in the section that includes the criteria put into the tournament by myrm, it reads "10 player world of Warcraft, double elimination". This is what the tournament was created as, by myrm. However, myrm and the rules committee of whoever thought that this was a good tournament format decided to alter the typical double elimination tournament. Instead of causing whichever team was in the winners bracket of the final (in this case JCM) to play a best of three series for the title, and then if the losers bracket team (in this case SR) won, another best of 3 series with the winner of this final series being the winner of the cup, they (organizers) decided to make the twink cup final a best of 5 series. But hey, lets give the team in the winners bracket a 1 game lead, because after all, they are in the winners bracket.

This is where the logic breaks down.
In the 2015 cup finals, JCM came into the finals in the winners bracket, having beat SR 2-0 in the semifinals. They had not lost a series yet.
SR was in the losers bracket, having lost to JCM 0-2 in the semifinals. They had lost 1 series.

Because SR had lost 1 series, 1 more best of 3 series loss would eliminate them from the twink cup. Note, in order for SR to be eliminated, they would have had to lose 4 total games. ( first series loss + second series loss, 2 + 2 = 4)

Now let's look at JCM's path to elimination with our current twink cup format. JCM comes into the finals having not lost a series. Ideally, in order to be eliminated, they would need to lose two best of three series ( just like everyone else in the twink cup), or four losses ( first series loss + second series loss, 2 + 2 = 4).
HOWEVER! (sorry for the long post, but this is why the twinkcup finals format really needs to be reconsidered before the 2016 twink cup), with the way that the 2015 twink cup finals format was set up, JCM's road to elimination was shorter than EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THE TWINK CUP ( minus partys over kek).
Before we were looking at JCM's ideal path to elimination, now we look at how they were actually eliminated.
JCM is put into a best of 5 series with the losers bracket team ( SR)
JCM is given a 1 game lead.
If SR loses two games ( putting JCM at three "wins" in this false best of 5 series), then SR is eliminated with a total of 4 losses in their two elimination series.
If SR wins three games ( putting SR at three wins in this false best of 5 series), then JCM is eliminated with a total of three losses in their elimination series.
Wait a minute............................................. what the ****.
This finals format actually manages to screw the winners bracket team, so that every other team in the tournament ( including the team in the losers bracket) is given more games to be eliminated than they(the winners bracket team) are.
EBLG lost 2 series (4 games) and were eliminated.
Partys Over didn't show.
Alpha Echelon lost 2 series (4 games) and were eliminated.
Beantown Bullies lost 2 series (4 games) and were eliminated.
Waka Flocka Seagulls lost 2 series (4 games) and were eliminated.
HARVEST lost 2 series (4 games) and were eliminated.
PING lost 2 series (4 games) and were eliminated.
Gurubashi Surf Club lost 2 series (4 games) and were eliminated

SR would have had to lose 2 series (4 games) to be eliminated
JCM did lose one best of 5 series ( 3 games) and were eliminated.

Now look at the challonge format that was set up by THE WEBSITE THAT MANAGES BRACKETS! for double elimination tournaments. That is what must be used for the next twink cup, as it gives every team the exact same conditions for being eliminated. Tournaments don't go from double elimination to a knock out series in the finals for a reason, and I have just thoroughly explained that reason to you.

[MENTION=5141]Myrm[/MENTION], this has to be fixed. Like this is ******. I realize that this is slightly an @ thread, but it needs to be said. You can take this however you want, inb4 conc closes it for dissent, but this needs to be fixed before next year's twink cup. Thank you :D
@everyone; I am not pointing this out as any result of the winners of the 2015 twink cup, congrats to SR on their win (which I didn't even get to watch, I suppose I can thank <PING> for that one). I am not saying that if JCM had the chance that they would come back from a 0-1 deficit in that final series (which is what the final series would have been at if the double elimination format was followed). I am just saying that this needs to be looked at for the future, as this is a major problem that has been coming for awhile now, but has finally caused an actual problem in our fourth play-through of the tournament.

inb4 shitstorm, I thank you all :D
 
ye I thought this was a bit bizarre too

usually the team coming from losers has to win 2 sets back to back to take the prize
 
I've always seen all types of tournaments played with the grand final requiring the loser bracket team to with 2 Bo5 sets and the winner bracket team needs to win one Bo5 set to win. Though with all the stalling it already ran way too long.
 
Eliot said:
I've always seen all types of tournaments played with the grand final requiring the loser bracket team to with 2 Bo5 sets and the winner bracket team needs to win one Bo5 set to win. Though with all the stalling it already ran way too long.
Click to expand...

exactly! the idea is, each team needs to have the same set of elimination requirements lmao, or it is just a laughable way to end an otherwise great tourney.
 
Probably should have had a straight up single elimination. Atleast up to the 1/4 finals.
Many things were learned this time around just as they were last year. And will be learned next year.
 
I'm just not that into censorship =(

I actually hate doing it.
 
Dorigon said:
Don't need that sort of redundancy when the finals are best of 5.
Click to expand...

You definitely do lmao, are you just ignoring the fact that JCM had one game fewer to lose? I get the SR bias, yes SR probably would have won one of the last two games, but there is nothing saying that JCM could not have made a comeback, won the last two games of that final bo3, and won the twink cup.
 
Laurenti said:
You definitely do lmao, are you just ignoring the fact that JCM had one game fewer to lose? I get the SR bias, yes SR probably would have won one of the last two games, but there is nothing saying that JCM could not have made a comeback, won the last two games of that final bo3, and won the twink cup.
Click to expand...

Err, ithere's just one victory of difference between a single bo5 and two bo3's. Whatever, it seems like a minor thing to make a thread about. I'd feel this way regardless of winner, has nothing to do with bias.
 
Dorigon said:
Err, ithere's just one victory of difference between a single bo5 and two bo3's. Whatever, it seems like a minor thing to make a thread about. I'd feel this way regardless of winner, has nothing to do with bias.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring a very major complication. The difference is not in whether the finals is 5 games or 6 games. The difference is that the two teams in the finals do not need to lose the same number of games to be eliminated. That is a very huge problem that will need to be addressed before the next twink cup. If you think that the two teams in the finals should have to lose a different number of games to be eliminated, then I honestly don't know what to tell you :(
 
Laurenti said:
You are ignoring a very major complication. The difference is not in whether the finals is 5 games or 6 games. The difference is that the two teams in the finals do not need to lose the same number of games to be eliminated. That is a very huge problem that will need to be addressed before the next twink cup. If you think that the two teams in the finals should have to lose a different number of games to be eliminated, then I honestly don't know what to tell you :(
Click to expand...

It's a design flaw of having a double elimination tournament be made up of series rather than individual matches. A pair of bo3 series would make more sense than a single bo5, but again, it's just a single victory's worth of difference.
 
Dorigon said:
It's a design flaw of having a double elimination tournament be made up of series rather than individual matches. A pair of bo3 series would make more sense than a single bo5, but again, it's just a single victory's worth of difference.
Click to expand...

Double elimination tournaments made up of bo3 series work perfectly fine lmao, look at the layout that challonge set up for us with the requirements that myrm put in. For some reason that hasn't been discussed, we haven't (and didn't) use it. I would love a straight answer on this [MENTION=5141]Myrm[/MENTION] . A single victory can make a huge difference. Look at SR vs waka flocka seagulls. After game one of that series, waka flocka was winning 1-0. SR came back to win the series 2-1. Using your logic, the rest of the series should never have been played, because the 1 game didn't matter and waka had it in the bag. Oh wait nevermind they didn't, which is a perfect example of why every game matters. If the proper double elimination format was followed in the twinkcup final, the current score would be SR 1 - JCM 0. Is it highly likely that JCM would have won both of those games to take the twinkcup after the way the series had been going? Not necessarily. Was it a possibility? Definitely!
 
It's not uncommon to run a double elimination tournament this way. MLG used to do this for the finals of double elimination SC2 tournaments and that's where the idea came from. Yesterday in stream chat you were pretending this was something that was added 5 minutes before the finals to benefit SR even thought it's one of the things that hasn't changed at all since last year and was posted months ago for this year's event. You also didn't have a problem with it in the arena tournament when harvest was coming from the loser's bracket.

The idea is to punish teams from the loser's bracket slightly less because they had to play more games with more at stake and managed to claw their way back into the winner's bracket. The team from the winner's bracket still has a significant advantage over the LB team, and this format is just as likely to benefit them as it is to hurt them because if there's 2 bo3s the winner's bracket team might have to win 3 games to win the series, in the current format they'll only ever need to win 2.

I don't know why you keep bringing up challonge like it matters either. You can't edit a match out of a challonge bracket. The challonge bracket is for ease of recording and viewing the bracket, they hold no authority over the actual format of the tournament.
 
Laurenti said:
Double elimination tournaments made up of bo3 series work perfectly fine lmao, look at the layout that challonge set up for us with the requirements that myrm put in. For some reason that hasn't been discussed, we haven't (and didn't) use it. I would love a straight answer on this Myrm . A single victory can make a huge difference. Look at SR vs waka flocka seagulls. After game one of that series, waka flocka was winning 1-0. SR came back to win the series 2-1. Using your logic, the rest of the series should never have been played, because the 1 game didn't matter and waka had it in the bag. Oh wait nevermind they didn't, which is a perfect example of why every game matters. If the proper double elimination format was followed in the twinkcup final, the current score would be SR 1 - JCM 0. Is it highly likely that JCM would have won both of those games to take the twinkcup after the way the series had been going? Not necessarily. Was it a possibility? Definitely!
Click to expand...

Challonge is a website that makes for easy formatting of tournaments. The Twink Cup rules obviously supersede anything included therein. As for my logic, I never made a statement regarding mid-tournament games such as the series played between SR and WFS, so your above comments bear no relevance to anything previously stated by myself. Regardless, there is no "proper" double elimination format to follow, since Myrm explicitly stated the tournament's rules far in advance.
 
Myrm said:
It's not uncommon to run a double elimination tournament this way. MLG used to do this for the finals of double elimination SC2 tournaments and that's where the idea came from. Yesterday in stream chat you were pretending this was something that was added 5 minutes before the finals to benefit SR even thought it's one of the things that hasn't changed at all since last year and was posted months ago for this year's event. You also didn't have a problem with it in the arena tournament when harvest was coming from the loser's bracket.

The idea is to punish teams from the loser's bracket slightly less because they had to play more games with more at stake and managed to claw their way back into the winner's bracket. The team from the winner's bracket still has a significant advantage over the LB team, and this format is just as likely to benefit them as it is to hurt them because if there's 2 bo3s the winner's bracket team might have to win 3 games to win the series, in the current format they'll only ever need to win 2.

I don't know why you keep bringing up challonge like it matters either. You can't edit a match out of a challonge bracket. The challonge bracket is for ease of recording and viewing the bracket, they hold no authority over the actual format of the tournament.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a double elimination tournament that was ended by one large set vs two small sets equal to the rest of the tournament. I never meant that it was added last minute to benefit SR, I was just sitting there watching, thinking about things in my head with all the time that I had, and in that amount of time browsing the bracket, I realized what an awful format it was. Yes it hasn't changed since last year, that doesn't make it any less of a problem, and it still needs to change. inb4 being called a harvest fanboy ( which most people know that I am not, no offence HB), I didn't even watch the arena tournament because I was out of town, anyone I talk to knows that I was at camp. Yes they might have to only win 2 instead of three, but they also have one extra game. The point is, with the current system, a team is being eliminated in a fewer number of losses in elimination games than everyone else. It is always more advantageous for a team to attempt to win one of two separate 3 game series, than it is to win one 5 game series, even starting a game up. Think of it this way. Say two teams are evenly matched, and each have a 50% chance to win a series when they play. (I AM NOT STATING THAT THIS WILL EVER BE TRUE WITH THE EXACT PERCENTAGES, IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING). If the finals format stays as it is with the winners bracket team starting a game up, they have around a 60% chance of winning, while only needing 2 wins. The losers bracket has a 40% chance of advancing. With the two bo3 series, the winners bracket team has a 50% chance of winning, and then a 50% chance of winning the second game. I'll take two shots at a 50/50 anyday over one shot of a 60/40.

You ask why I bring up the challonge..... perhaps because they are a website that specializes in bracket generating??? When you requested a 10 team, double elimination tournament, challonge set it up that way for a reason, and that reason is that the bracket is completely balanced, and does not give any team an advantage at any point of the tournament. Once you take that and mess with it, you do not have the same balanced outcome. I assume that you own a twinking website instead of a bracket generator website for a reason; I think that it is safe to say that you have played more warsongs in the last year than you have created tournament brackets.

This needs to be fixed by next year. It really does. If you cannot see that, than I honestly don't know how to explain it to you any better :(

Also, rereading your post before posting, I think I found our disagreement/problem. "The idea is to punish teams from the loser's bracket slightly less".
Did I just read that right? The entire idea of the "Losers bracket" is that is has a NEGATIVE connotation. You don't want to be in the losers bracket. It means that you messed up, and are on the brink of elimination. If you are on the brink of elimination, you should stay on the brink of elimination (That is kind of the whole idea of a double elimination tournament). Just because you made your way back into the finals, doesn't mean that you should get any special benefits to make your losers bracket plight any better. You still lost, you should still be on the brink of elimination. Making the finals a bo5 that benefits the losers bracket team MORE THAN IT SHOULD does nothing. Remember, if you strive to "punish teams from the losers bracket slightly less", than you are also striving to "lessen the advantage of teams in the winners bracket slightly more". That simply can't be denied, and is very annoying to communicate to you.
 
Dorigon said:
Challonge is a website that makes for easy formatting of tournaments. The Twink Cup rules obviously supersede anything included therein. As for my logic, I never made a statement regarding mid-tournament games such as the series played between SR and WFS, so your above comments bear no relevance to anything previously stated by myself. Regardless, there is no "proper" double elimination format to follow, since Myrm explicitly stated the tournament's rules far in advance.
Click to expand...

You didn't follow me along to my point, but that is ok, ill explain it a bit more simply.
SR was down 0-1. They came back to win 2-1. This proves that 0-1 comebacks are possible. True? I thought so.
If the two set, bo3 format was followed, the current series score would be 1-0 in the favor of skill ratio. True? Yes
THEREFORE...... ( using super hipe deductive reasoning skills here bois), we can conclude that JCM would still have a chance to come from behind and win the twink cup if the format did not favor the losers bracket team at the time of the finals.
Did you get lost yet, or did you follow me that time?

"The twink cup rules obviously supersede anything included on challonge."
I do not disagree with you. The point that I am trying to make (and you keep missing), is that the twink cup rules that we have been using are flawed, and that they need to change. Neither you or myrm seem to get that at this point, but I'm working on it.

As to the last statement, are you implying that it is impossible for myrm (or anyone for that matter) to be incorrect? Laughable.
 
Laurenti said:
You didn't follow me along to my point, but that is ok, ill explain it a bit more simply.
SR was down 0-1. They came back to win 2-1. This proves that 0-1 comebacks are possible. True? I thought so.
If the two set, bo3 format was followed, the current series score would be 1-0 in the favor of skill ratio. True? Yes
THEREFORE...... ( using super hipe deductive reasoning skills here bois), we can conclude that JCM would still have a chance to come from behind and win the twink cup if the format did not favor the losers bracket team at the time of the finals.
Did you get lost yet, or did you follow me that time?

"The twink cup rules obviously supersede anything included on challonge."
I do not disagree with you. The point that I am trying to make (and you keep missing), is that the twink cup rules that we have been using are flawed, and that they need to change. Neither you or myrm seem to get that at this point, but I'm working on it.

As to the last statement, are you implying that it is impossible for myrm (or anyone for that matter) to be incorrect? Laughable.
Click to expand...

Maybe Myrm can post the 2016 Twink Cup thread next week instead of waiting until January this time so that everyone has ample time to comprehend the bracketing rules. :rolleyes:
 
Dorigon said:
Maybe Myrm can post the 2016 Twink Cup thread next week instead of waiting until January this time so that everyone has ample time to comprehend the bracketing rules. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Very funny, you act like I actually kept up with the twinkcup rules in the discussion thread, because I totally led a team or even played in the cup right? Oh wait, as of the date that it was announced I knew that I would be unable to play in it, as I was on the road for matchdays 1 and 2. I tuned in late night of matchday 2, and for the finals of matchday 3. I was bored, so I contemplated the bracket in between the games, and I realized how ****** up a format it was. I always wondered why we never actually followed the bo3 double elimination final last year, but never really sat down and looked at it for 10 minutes or so. Hence why I am trying to change it for future cups, in which I plan to participate. I hope you followed my logic through that, explaining simple things in detail gets very annoying, and also screw typing when I have a biology summer assignment to read lmao :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top