@TwinkCup2k16 Organizers, Myrm/Rules Committee

[Dorigon]

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

TBH I didn't read any of your walls of text very carefully, just having some fun before work

 

[Laurenti]

TBH I didn't read any of your walls of text very carefully, just having some fun before work

No worries, they will be waiting for myrm whenever he returns to this thread. It is annoying to talk about these details, but they need to be worked out before the next twinkcup. [MENTION=5141]Myrm[/MENTION], I could care less about the outcome of the 2k15 twink cup, I am simply using it as a perfect example of why a flawed system needs to change

 

[Swoops]

It's not really worth getting this worked up over right now. If you're that adamant that this has little to do with this year's twink cup, then revisit it when planning starts for 2016. I don't recall anyone bringing it up as a major issue in the 6 months since rules were posted.

Whether or not it's the best way to handle double elimination, it wasn't the first tournament to set up this way. If the rule was that bad, we definitely would've gotten a few pages of bickering out of it in the rules thread. At this point, putting this much work into an argument just comes off as sour grapes over how the tournament worked out.

 

[Laurenti]

[MENTION=5141]Myrm[/MENTION]
You were referencing the way that starcraft 2 handles their double elimination tournaments, so I figured that I'd look some stuff up. Googled SC 2 double elimination
IGN ProLeague Season 4 - Liquipedia - The StarCraft II Encyclopedia = link to the bracket for season 4
Notice in rules: Eight-player double-elimination bracket, Best of 3 all the way to semifinals, where matches shall be best of 5 "

NOTICE THAT IS SAYS MATCHES!!!
matches = plural. So there is more than one.
Now this is where it gets better.
View attachment 5786
The team in the winners bracket is aLive. They face Squirtle in the finals. Notice, the rest of the tournament was bo3, the semis and finals were bo5. In the first final series, team squirtle won, 3 games to 2. This put aLive at 1 series loss, and squirtle at 1 series loss. BECAUSE OF THIS, ANOTHER BEST OF 5 WAS PLAYED TO DETERMINE THE WINNER, WHICH THE WINNERS BRACKET TEAM TOOK IN 3 GAMES.

[MENTION=5141]Myrm[/MENTION], note that they did not just make a single best of 5 series for the grand final, they made it a bo5 series, with another bo5 if the winners bracket team lost the first series. Don't quote something without backing it up lmao. Even your own evidence (which was not what you thought it was), uses the double elimination method. It is ok to admit that you don't understand how double elimination tournaments work, however it comes off really bad when you pretend that you know how double elimination tournaments work.

This really needs to be solved before the next twink cup, or it will continue to cause problems. I was not the only one who thought that the way the finals was/is set up was/is problematic, others voiced their concern in stream as well. It simply isn't a fair bracket to all teams, at this point that is basically 100% undeniable, and as a result needs to be fixed. I apologize if I am coming across as rude or insulting, but I am trying to get this into your ( and others') head(s).

Please communicate with the community about issues like this, it is only for the better. If you lock this thread it only shows your unwillingness to communicate, and that does not solve any problems whatsoever.

 

[Laurenti]

It's not really worth getting this worked up over right now. If you're that adamant that this has little to do with this year's twink cup, then revisit it when planning starts for 2016. I don't recall anyone bringing it up as a major issue in the 6 months since rules were posted.

Whether or not it's the best way to handle double elimination, it wasn't the first tournament to set up this way. If the rule was that bad, we definitely would've gotten a few pages of bickering out of it in the rules thread. At this point, putting this much work into an argument just comes off as sour grapes over how the tournament worked out.

I could care less about this year's TC, as I couldn't play in it an am effectively guildless lol. Ignore that my MW is in flocka, that was for a premade. Also this didn't involve them , I don't really know anyone in JCM. I am just really OCD about things being correct (#grammar ****), this is the same concept. It is fact that something is unfair in a supposedly balanced tournament and the tournament organizer won't acknowledge that something is wrong. Me, being the debate team high-schooler that I am, am proving a point that needs to be made. People need to voice their opinions in order to encourage change, and I am making sure that at least one thing about the twink cup is done to perfection next year

 

[Shaket]

Some sample rules for 2k16 cup (following the pattern established this year):

If any team gets 3 caps in a game against SR, SR wins.

If SR loses every single game they enter, SR wins the tourney.

If SR does not get a single cap in the 2k16 Twink Cup, SR wins the cup.

If anyone playing in the cup gets DDoSed, SR wins the cup.

If any team is more than 1 minute 30 seconds late for a match, SR wins the cup. (SR is of course exempt from this rule and any other rule that would otherwise lead to a DQ)

If the sun rises on the morning of day 1 or 2 of the cup, SR wins the cup.

If Bigmoran falls off the gy, SR wins the cup.

If Darkpizza pulls his head out of his ***, SR wins the cup.

If Darkpizza does not pull his head out of his ***, SR wins the cup.


Hopefully this helps clear up a bit of confusion. As we progress towards 2k16, more contingencies will be added to ensure SR wins the cup.

 

[Laurenti]

Some sample rules for 2k16 cup (following the pattern established this year):
If any team gets 3 caps in a game against SR, SR wins.
If SR loses every single game they enter, SR wins the tourney.
If SR does not get a single cap in the 2k16 Twink Cup, SR wins the cup.
If anyone playing in the cup gets DDoSed, SR wins the cup.
If any team is more than 1 minute 30 seconds late for a match, SR wins the cup. (SR is of course exempt from this rule and any other rule that would otherwise lead to a DQ)
If the sun rises on the morning of day 1 or 2 of the cup, SR wins the cup.
If Bigmoran falls off the gy, SR wins the cup.
If Darkpizza pulls his head out of his ***, SR wins the cup.
If Darkpizza does not pull his head out of his ***, SR wins the cup.
Hopefully this helps clear up a bit of confusion. As we progress towards 2k16, more contingencies will be added to ensure SR wins the cup.

This is not something that contributes to the discussion at all. As I have said, I have no problem with the winners of the twink cup. Skill Ratio did not create the bracket, myrm or the rules committee did. Congrats to Pizza and Skill Ratio, they played some great games that were fun to watch [MENTION=65]Pizza[/MENTION] FCing <3. However, I have a problem with the bracket format, and more importantly the fact that myrm is convinced that there is nothing wrong with it. It needs to change before 2k15, and that is what I am trying to convey to the bracket. Useless anti-Skill Ratio posts do nothing but further the stereotype that everyone who dislikes anything that went wrong with the twinkcup is a skill ratio hater, because this is simply not true.

 

[Myrm]

Myrm
You were referencing the way that starcraft 2 handles their double elimination tournaments, so I figured that I'd look some stuff up. Googled SC 2 double elimination
IGN ProLeague Season 4 - Liquipedia - The StarCraft II Encyclopedia = link to the bracket for season 4
Notice in rules: Eight-player double-elimination bracket, Best of 3 all the way to semifinals, where matches shall be best of 5 "

NOTICE THAT IS SAYS MATCHES!!!
matches = plural. So there is more than one.
Now this is where it gets better.
View attachment 5786
The team in the winners bracket is aLive. They face Squirtle in the finals. Notice, the rest of the tournament was bo3, the semis and finals were bo5. In the first final series, team squirtle won, 3 games to 2. This put aLive at 1 series loss, and squirtle at 1 series loss. BECAUSE OF THIS, ANOTHER BEST OF 5 WAS PLAYED TO DETERMINE THE WINNER, WHICH THE WINNERS BRACKET TEAM TOOK IN 3 GAMES.

Myrm, note that they did not just make a single best of 5 series for the grand final, they made it a bo5 series, with another bo5 if the winners bracket team lost the first series. Don't quote something without backing it up lmao. Even your own evidence (which was not what you thought it was), uses the double elimination method. It is ok to admit that you don't understand how double elimination tournaments work, however it comes off really bad when you pretend that you know how double elimination tournaments work.

This argument is just getting dumb at this point. I referenced MLG sc2 tournaments so you post a link to an IPL sc2 tournament and write an essay about it, probably because you couldn't figure out how the MLG rules worked when you went to the MLG page on liquipedia.

I didn't use the exact MLG finals format but an adapted version of it. There's isn't a single bo5 but a single bo7, and the winning bracket team almost always starts 2 games up instead of 1. I haven't watched an MLG tournament in years but the finals format was inspired by their finals rules. MLG uses an extended series rule where if a team has played a team before and they play in the finals the score from their previous game is carried over into a bo7, this means that the majority of mlg finals end up being a bo7 that start out either 2-1 or 2-0. I adapted this so it's more static and less reliant on previous outcomes.

If you don't like the rule that's fine but you're just making both of us look childish at this point.

 

[Sickshots]

I know my opinion means next to nothing but I must say I completely agree with the original post. How in a DOUBLE ELIMINATION tournament does a team lose 1 series and is eliminated? Simply, it doesn't make sense. Would love to see changes made next year! Thanks to everyone who made the tournament happen.

 

[Laurenti]

This argument is just getting dumb at this point. I referenced MLG sc2 tournaments so you post a link to an IPL sc2 tournament and write an essay about it, probably because you couldn't figure out how the MLG rules worked when you went to the MLG page on liquipedia.

My apologies, I have no idea what the difference between an MLG tournament and an IPL tournament is. I don't play starcraft, and I googled sc2 tournament format.
I don't starcraft

MLG uses an extended series rule where if a team has played a team before and they play in the finals the score from their previous game is carried over into a bo7, I adapted this so it's more static and less reliant on previous outcomes.

So basically you took a balanced tournament format, reduced the factor that made it balanced, and then wonder why the result doesn't work fairly for all teams. Not even sure what to say to that...
What is sad is that with this format is that even with the bonus +1, JCM was still eliminated on 3 games, when it would have taken 4 losses for SR. That is not balanced, and cannot be denied.
To make matters worse, when you scaled down the game size, you also reduced the advantage of the team in the winners bracket:
Note, 2/7 = 29% of total games awarded, or 50% of games to win awarded (2/4)
1/5 = 20% of total games awarded, or 33.3% (repeating, of course ) of games to win awarded (1/3)
Basically, using your MLG sc2 tournament, the winners bracket team would be awarded a game and a half, out of five, which would be 50% of the games required to win. Obviously, you cant give a team a half a game, so to solve the problem use two, bo3 series, just like almost every other double elimination tournament uses, not to mention the bracket program that you used for the cup uses.
When you used the design of that tournament, you reduced the games from bo7 to bo5, but reduced the bonus game from 2 to 1. This obviously causes a discrepancy that hurts the team in the winners bracket, and benefits the team in the losers bracket.
I will say it again, for the tournament to be fair for every team involved and for the team in the winners bracket to be at the advantage that they earn, this has to be fixed for next year. I have given you a very simple solution, and yet you still deny that there is something wrong with the format of the twinkcup. RIP

 

[Rusks]

this seems right idk

 

[Dorigon]

Participating teams implied their acceptance of the listed rules through the act of signing up. I'm sure a team coming out of the winner's bracket would prefer having to lose two bo3's to losing one bo5, but this format does have precedent as evidenced by Myrm, and it really wasn't an "issue that needs fixing" until several individuals attempted to make it an issue after the fact.

 

[Snack]

This is how I see this thread: Dorigoon trying to defend the rules Myrm made, because these were the rules that ensured SR the win (not saying that they wouldn't have won with the actual double elimination ruleset)

Myrm being kinda offended because Neap pointed out flaws in his rules.

And Neap not seing any of this, but carrying on arguing for his course.


Personally I agree that it seems a bit off with the bo5 format.

 

[Laurenti]

this format does have precedent as evidenced by Myrm,

Exactly, it has the precedent of being used two years in a row. How long were the articles of confederation used, before we realized that they were extremely weak, and needed to be replaced?
[MENTION=12184]Snack[/MENTION], you nailed it They didn't ensure that SR would win, however it did give them an advantage. Due to the fact that the bracket should not favor every team in the bracket over one specific team (the winners bracket finals team), I am bothered by this. It needs to change.

 

[Dorigon]

Exactly, it has the precedent of being used two years in a row. How long were the articles of confederation used, before we realized that they were extremely weak, and needed to be replaced?

There's been nothing to show that the tourney bracketing rules are extremely weak. I just see one guy soapboxing the issue, posting links to it in other threads and the chatbox. Gotta give that grassroots effort the old college try.

 

[Laurenti]

There's been nothing to show that the tourney bracketing rules are extremely weak. I just see one guy soapboxing the issue, posting links to it in other threads and the chatbox. Gotta give that grassroots effort the old college try.

You completely missed the analogy I am not saying that the tournament rules are very weak (they are very vague about exploits, but that is a different matter altogether). I am saying that, similar to the articles of confederation, the twinkcup finals format is flawed, and needs to change.

 

[Rusks]

You completely missed the analogy I am not saying that the tournament rules are very weak (they are very vague about exploits, but that is a different matter altogether). I am saying that, similar to the articles of confederation, the twinkcup finals format is flawed, and needs to change.

the rules could use some change and reworking

 

[Conq]

the rules could use some change and reworking

That is already being worked on, in part because of its significance to the NWL.

 

[Laurenti]

That is already being worked on, in part because of its significance to the NWL.

[MENTION=189]Conq[/MENTION], thank you for the communication, and the affirmative. Hopefully you understood my point, and can realize how much of a problem an unbalanced bracket is! Thanks

 

[Conq]

Conq, thank you for the communication, and the affirmative. Hopefully you understood my point, and can realize how much of a problem an unbalanced bracket is! Thanks

To be clear i wasn't talking about just the brackets, were taking another look at everything.