Counterpick Rules and Discussion

[Garja]

Let me ask you a follow-up question: do you think it is more fair, less fair, or just as fair as the current ruleset to have alternating counterpicks, except where the winner of game 1 gets to counterpick first?

i.e. G1 neutral player A wins, Player A counterpicks, Player B counterpicks, Player A counterpicks, Player B counterpicks

Probably slightly less fair than the current ruleset just because the second match is the only one where makes sense to give a little advantage to the loser.
More or less is the same tho. Could be a coin toss to decide who counterpicks first and it still would be fair, as long as next counterpicks are alternated.

So you said earlier that players should be expected to win on their own counterpicks, or else they probably deserve to lose. Do you not see how if this is the case, player B could never be expected to win a set? Player A would reach 3 wins after 4 games.

The points I am trying to make by bringing this up are

A) Sequencing of counterpicks matters, even if both have an equal number distributed over the set
B) It is wrong to simply assume that players will win on their own counterpicks in a fairly matched contest
C) Accepting B, it is important to order the sequencing of counterpicks with the knowledge that in certain cases, players will lose on their first counterpick.

Sorry but I simply can't follow you here.
All I know is that the current ruleset is totally fair. It is alternated, that by definition is fair because it is one each. The fact that one player is countered on the match point is not a technical argument for fairness.

If you argue that the 3rd game counterpick is particularly important, and I were to concede that, then you must concede that the current ruleset gives the strongest counterpick to any player up 2-0, and always to the winner of the first game. I think it is a mistake to err on the side of prematurely ending sets.

It is just as much erroneous to keep giving the loser a 2nd chance whenever he loses a game.

[lesllamas]

Maybe I'll have to spell this out for you like you're 5 if you don't follow

Imagine Samwise and H20 are playing a Best of 5 under the hypothetical rules I outlined above (N W L W L). *note that these are NOT the exact current rules and I'm using the hypothetical to make a different point*

Samwise wins first game, 1-0. Samwise wins second game on his counterpick, 2-0. H20 wins 3rd game on his counterpick, 2-1. Samwise wins fourth game on his counterpick, 3-1.

Samwise wins the set having had 2 games to counterpick, and H20 had one game with which to counterpick before the set was over.

The set was done via alternating pick--do you think the set was completely fair?




______________________________

"It is just as much erroneous to keep giving the loser a 2nd chance whenever he loses a game."

What do you mean by "keep giving"? You keep using language that suggests the loser gets an additional counterpick, or that the score somehow magically shifts to give a player that loses on their own counterpick extra chances to replay a game that they lost.

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

The difference is apparent when the winner of game 1 is up 2-0, as you described yourself. Winner picks first then favours the losing player while alternating picks does not. I get that he still has to win at least one game He must win two in a row on his opponent's counterpick, not 1 where he got counter picked, but that one extra game where the loser gets to counterpick what. extra. game? In no situation does he gain an additional counterpick

He gets an additional chance to stay in the series. The difference between 3-0 and 2-1 is big, as I'm sure you're aware. As mentioned, in a best of 5 civs reset after game 3 plus the map may or may not be an important factor. That counter pick the loser gets when he's down 2-0 in your suggested rule set can make the difference between him winning the series or losing the series, is my point, and imo there is no reason why he should get that chance.

Yes, he does have a better chance to stay in the series for at least one more game. But it cuts equally both ways--the winner of game 1 can be in the exact same situation should he fail to win on his first counterpick. Also, the difference between 3-0 and 2-1 is big in that the series is either over or it isn't, which is indeed big.

The civ reset is probably the best point you've brought up, though I'm not particularly convinced that it's consequential unless the two players have a very particular (i.e. limited) civ pool.

I vigorously dispute this: That counter pick the loser gets when he's down 2-0 in your suggested rule set can make the difference between him winning the series or losing the series.----It can only make the difference between losing the series and remaining in a series with the odds stacked heavily against him. If he proceeds to win that series, then I would suggest that the rule change was a resounding success, because he had the opportunity to clutch out games that should be tilted in his opponents' favor and did so. Adaptation over the course of a short set is a facet of any tournament play, and IMO a player who has 3 straight chances to close out his opponent, with 2 straight counterpicks, and cannot do so, should not deserve to win that set.

If you argue that the 3rd game counterpick is particularly important, and I were to concede that, then you must concede that the current ruleset gives the strongest counterpick to any player up 2-0, and always to the winner of the first game. I think it is a mistake to err on the side of prematurely ending sets.

Now that we understand each other the difference of opinion is apparent but just for the record, I don't think "prematurely ending" a series is a problem. In other words, I don't see any reason why we should give the player who is 2-0 down (despite having had the counter pick in game2) another chance to stay in the series beyond simply winning game3 while being counter picked.

[lesllamas]

Now that we understand each other the difference of opinion is apparent but just for the record, I don't think "prematurely ending" a series is a problem. In other words, I don't see any reason why we should give the player who is 2-0 down (despite having had the counter pick in game2) another chance to stay in the series beyond simply winning game3 despite being counter picked (which is not impossible, and if it is then he deserved to lose 3-0).

That's fine, and a tenable position to take. I simply disagree. Flip the situation on its head, and I say that I don't think we should give the player that's up 2-0 the additional advantage of having the counterpick to close out his opponent (in this situation with civ rules, the counterpick you say is the strongest).


edit: further, in my opinion 3-0 victories are more significant and indicative of a skill gap in loser's counterpick as well. It makes no sense to me to not give evenly matched players every opportunity to adapt over the course of a set and punish their opponent for not finishing their food.

[deleted_user0]

the way i see it, current rules are more prone to result in 3-0, while lesllamas rules are more prone to result in 3-1 in the event of a player winning the first 2 games in a row. However, the current rules are more prone to result in 3-2 whenever the other player wins game3, while lesllamas rules are still prone to result in 3-1.

Lets assume that counterpicking is really strong in this game (Which it is, in my opinion) and therefor, the player who counterpicks has 2x better odds to win the game than the countered player, so the most likely event to happen is that the countered player loses. Whenever a player who is being countered wins, we shall call it breaking his opponent (like in tennis, when you win on your opponents serve).

If this happens all the the time, then in both systems, the most likely outcome is 3-2. and it will look like this

Player A wins Neutral game1
Player B wins CounterPick g2
Player A wins CP g3
Player B wins CP g4
Player A wins CP game 5
=3-2 for A

Now in the less likely event that a player wins 2 games in a row, the current rules are most likely to result in this
Player A wins N g1
Player A breaks Countered g2
Player A wins CP g3
=3-0 for A

While in this case, LesLlama's rules are most likely to result in this
Player A wins N g1
Player A breaks C g2
Player B wins CP g3
Player A wins CP g4
= 3-1 for A

Lesllamas is arguing that this is more fair, because the losing player gets to use all his potential CP's in the series before he tabs out, and he wont be punished for losing the neutral first game by being put in a countered postion when he is down 2-0. There is definitely merit to this argument. There is definitely precedent for the current rule set too though, for example Tennis, where the Serve can be compared to the Counterpick, which means it makes it more likely for the serving player to win that particular game (not the set or the match, but the 45p to gamepoint). In tennis serves are alternated, and breaking your opponents serve doesn't mean he gets to serve another time, however tennis doesn't have a neutral game, possibly making it even more unfair than the current rules


However, consider the following too, in the unlikely event that a player wins two in a row (aka wins neutral game 1 and then breaks in game2), and then gets broken in game3, the current ruleset is most likely going to play out like this:"

Player A wins N g1
Player A breaks C g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player B wins CP g4
Player A wins CP g5
= 3-2 for A

However, lesllamas rules are still most likely going to result in a 3-1 situation because of the winner picks first rule and it will most likely look like this:
Player A wins N g1
Player A breaks C g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player A wins CP g4
= 3-1 for A

So while the rules lesllamas proposes do avoid the situation where the player who is down 2-0 gets counterpicked on matchpoint in game3, they do not avoid the same situation in game4.
There are two more situations to consider, and that is a break in game3 and a break in g3+4, in which case the current rules will look like this:
Player A wins N g1
Player B wins CP g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player B wins CP g4
= 3-1 for B

While lesllama's rules are most likely to play out like this
Player A wins N g1
Player B wins CP g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player A wins CP g4
Player B wins CP g5
= 3-2 for B


The double break will look like the following in the current ruleset
Player A wins N g1
Player B wins CP g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player A breaks C g4
Player A wins CP g5
= 3-2 for A

While in the ruleset lesllamas proposes it is most likely to go as follows:
Player A wins N g1
Player B wins CP g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player A breaks C g4
Player B wins CP g5
= 3-2 for B

So it seems to me that there are situations in which both rulesets are more lenient to the winner of g1, but also situations in which both rule sets are more punishing to the winner of g1. But there it appears that only in one case lesllamas ruleset will most likely result in a different winner of the series than the current ruleset, and that is in the last case of the double break, and this might be seen as punishing the winner of the neutral game one in a way. However, in the case of break in game3, the current ruleset are most likely not going to end up in that situation, so its arguable wether or not lesllamas rules are more unfair in that situation. However, i dont really see too much difference in the end, so i dont think its needed to change the rules atm, specially since the thing is actually more complicated if you are going to consider civ reset and a depleting civ pool, specially relevant in series longer than bo5.

[Garja]

Maybe I'll have to spell this out for you like you're 5 if you don't follow

Imagine Samwise and H20 are playing a Best of 5 under the hypothetical rules I outlined above (N W L W L). *note that these are NOT the exact current rules and I'm using the hypothetical to make a different point*

Samwise wins first game, 1-0. Samwise wins second game on his counterpick, 2-0. H20 wins 3rd game on his counterpick, 2-1. Samwise wins fourth game on his counterpick, 3-1.

Samwise wins the set having had 2 games to counterpick, and H20 had one game with which to counterpick before the set was over.

The set was done via alternating pick--do you think the set was completely fair?

Lol first of all chill. I don't follow you because 1) I slept 2 hours and 2) all of this is purely hypotetical and requires quite some imagination.
The example does clarify what you meant.
Only reason why Samwise gets 2 counterpicks is because in your hypothesis the first counterpick is granted to the winner. Giving the first counterpick to the loser and assuming the same outcome (each player wins on his own counterpick) the series would be tied up 2-2 after 4 games, with the loser having used 2 counterpicks already while the winner having counterpick on match point.
So to answer your question, that scenario is not fair because first counterpick is given to the winner, which increases its advantage. Aside from that, however, the alternate pick remains totally fair.

"It is just as much erroneous to keep giving the loser a 2nd chance whenever he loses a game."

What do you mean by "keep giving"? You keep using language that suggests the loser gets an additional counterpick, or that the score somehow magically shifts to give a player that loses on their own counterpick extra chances to replay a game that they lost.

With winner picks first the loser keeps counterpicking till he wins a game. That's not fair.

... I don't think "prematurely ending" a series is a problem. In other words, I don't see any reason why we should give the player who is 2-0 down (despite having had the counter pick in game2) another chance to stay in the series beyond simply winning game3 while being counter picked.

Pretty much this.

[lesllamas]

the way i see it, current rules are more prone to result in 3-0, while lesllamas rules are more prone to result in 3-1 in the event of a player winning the first 2 games in a row. However, the current rules are more prone to result in 3-2 whenever the other player wins game3, while lesllamas rules are still prone to result in 3-1.

Lets assume that counterpicking is really strong in this game (Which it is, in my opinion) and therefor, the player who counterpicks has 2x better odds to win the game than the countered player, so the most likely event to happen is that the countered player loses. Whenever a player who is being countered wins, we shall call it breaking his opponent (like in tennis, when you win on your opponents serve).

If this happens all the the time, then in both systems, the most likely outcome is 3-2. and it will look like this

Player A wins Neutral game1
Player B wins CounterPick g2
Player A wins CP g3
Player B wins CP g4
Player A wins CP game 5
=3-2 for A

Now in the less likely event that a player wins 2 games in a row, the current rules are most likely to result in this
Player A wins N g1
Player A breaks Countered g2
Player A wins CP g3
=3-0 for A

While in this case, LesLlama's rules are most likely to result in this
Player A wins N g1
Player A breaks C g2
Player B wins CP g3
Player A wins CP g4
= 3-1 for A

Lesllamas is arguing that this is more fair, because the losing player gets to use all his potential CP's in the series before he tabs out, and he wont be punished for losing the neutral first game by being put in a countered postion when he is down 2-0. There is definitely merit to this argument. There is definitely precedent for the current rule set too though, for example Tennis, where the Serve can be compared to the Counterpick, which means it makes it more likely for the serving player to win that particular game (not the set or the match, but the 45p to gamepoint). In tennis serves are alternated, and breaking your opponents serve doesn't mean he gets to serve another time, however tennis doesn't have a neutral game, possibly making it even more unfair than the current rules


However, consider the following too, in the unlikely event that a player wins two in a row (aka wins neutral game 1 and then breaks in game2), and then gets broken in game3, the current ruleset is most likely going to play out like this:"

Player A wins N g1
Player A breaks C g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player B wins CP g4
Player A wins CP g5
= 3-2 for A

However, lesllamas rules are still most likely going to result in a 3-1 situation because of the winner picks first rule and it will most likely look like this:
Player A wins N g1
Player A breaks C g2
Player B breaks C g3 This should be B's counterpick in the ruleset, as player A won g2--I think you meant to write it like that because everything should play out the same
Player A wins CP g4
= 3-1 for A

So while the rules lesllamas proposes do avoid the situation where the player who is down 2-0 gets counterpicked on matchpoint in game3, they do not avoid the same situation in game4.
There are two more situations to consider, and that is a break in game3 and a break in g3+4, in which case the current rules will look like this:
Player A wins N g1
Player B wins CP g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player B wins CP g4
= 3-1 for B

While lesllama's rules are most likely to play out like this
Player A wins N g1
Player B wins CP g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player A wins CP g4
Player B wins CP g5
= 3-2 for B


The double break will look like the following in the current ruleset
Player A wins N g1
Player B wins CP g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player A breaks C g4
Player A wins CP g5
= 3-2 for A

While in the ruleset lesllamas proposes it is most likely to go as follows:
Player A wins N g1
Player B wins CP g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player A breaks C g4 This should not be a break--Player A will have the counterpick in game 4 if player B breaks g3
Player B wins CP g5 Which would make this a single break and not a double break
= 3-2 for B

Double break would play out like this:
Player A wins N g1
Player B wins CP g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player A wins CP g4
Player A breaks C g5
=3-2 for A
So it seems to me that there are situations in which both rulesets are more lenient to the winner of g1, but also situations in which both rule sets are more punishing to the winner of g1. But there it appears that only in one case lesllamas ruleset will most likely result in a different winner of the series than the current ruleset, and that is in the last case of the double break, and this might be seen as punishing the winner of the neutral game one in a way. However, in the case of break in game3, the current ruleset are most likely not going to end up in that situation, so its arguable wether or not lesllamas rules are more unfair in that situation. However, i dont really see too much difference in the end, so i dont think its needed to change the rules atm, specially since the thing is actually more complicated if you are going to consider civ reset and a depleting civ pool, specially relevant in series longer than bo5.

You made a mistake on double break--see bolded. The ruleset I propose does not punish the winner of g1 in a double break scenario.

Other than that, this is a perfect representation of the difference between the two rulesets.

[deleted_user0]

ah you are right both times, so then there isnt really a difference in series winners with either set.

[lesllamas]

Maybe I'll have to spell this out for you like you're 5 if you don't follow

Imagine Samwise and H20 are playing a Best of 5 under the hypothetical rules I outlined above (N W L W L). *note that these are NOT the exact current rules and I'm using the hypothetical to make a different point*

Samwise wins first game, 1-0. Samwise wins second game on his counterpick, 2-0. H20 wins 3rd game on his counterpick, 2-1. Samwise wins fourth game on his counterpick, 3-1.

Samwise wins the set having had 2 games to counterpick, and H20 had one game with which to counterpick before the set was over.

The set was done via alternating pick--do you think the set was completely fair?

Lol first of all chill. I don't follow you because 1) I slept 2 hours and 2) all of this is purely hypotetical and requires quite some imagination.
The example does clarify what you meant.
Only reason why Samwise gets 2 counterpicks is because in your hypothesis the first counterpick is granted to the winner. Giving the first counterpick to the loser and assuming the same outcome (each player wins on his own counterpick) the series would be tied up 2-2 after 4 games, with the loser having used 2 counterpicks already while the winner having counterpick on match point.
So to answer your question, that scenario is not fair because first counterpick is given to the winner, which increases its advantage. Aside from that, however, the alternate pick remains totally fair.

The point is that the sequencing of the counterpicks matters. In a BO3 for example, giving the winner of g1 the first counterpick is unfair, even though theoretically his opponent has an equal number of counterpicks in alternating pick. The reason it is unfair is because it allows for a situation where the counterpicking balance of the games played is uneven (because the set will end once a player reaches the appropriate score threshold). So in BO5, under the current ruleset, it is very possible for two players to play 4 games, 1 of which is neutral, 2 of which are counterpicks for the winner, and 1 of which is a counterpick for the loser (in this 3-1 scenario, the loser is actually the person who won the neutral game 1). If you accept on principle that giving the winner first counterpick in BO3 is unfair, then you must accept that this too, is unfair. The same principle is more abstractly applied in 3-0 situations.

"It is just as much erroneous to keep giving the loser a 2nd chance whenever he loses a game."

What do you mean by "keep giving"? You keep using language that suggests the loser gets an additional counterpick, or that the score somehow magically shifts to give a player that loses on their own counterpick extra chances to replay a game that they lost.

With winner picks first the loser keeps counterpicking till he wins a game. This is not true. Players counterpick after each of his losses--a maximum of 2. The set does not magically extend to 7 or 9 games. A player will only ever counterpick twice, and in some scenarios it will be twice in a row--but this goes for both players during the set. That's not fair.

... I don't think "prematurely ending" a series is a problem. In other words, I don't see any reason why we should give the player who is 2-0 down (despite having had the counter pick in game2) another chance to stay in the series beyond simply winning game3 while being counter picked.

Pretty much this.

[lesllamas]

ah you are right both times, so then there isnt really a difference in series winners with either set.

Exactly. It's refreshing that you have a solid grasp on basic set mechanics.

[Garja]

The point is that the sequencing of the counterpicks matters. In a BO3 for example, giving the winner of g1 the first counterpick is unfair, even though theoretically his opponent has an equal number of counterpicks in alternating pick. The reason it is unfair is because it allows for a situation where the counterpicking balance of the games played is uneven (because the set will end once a player reaches the appropriate score threshold). So in BO5, under the current ruleset, it is very possible for two players to play 4 games, 1 of which is neutral, 2 of which are counterpicks for the winner, and 1 of which is a counterpick for the loser (in this 3-1 scenario, the loser is actually the person who won the neutral game 1). If you accept on principle that giving the winner first counterpick in BO3 is unfair, then you must accept that this too, is unfair. The same principle is more abstractly applied in 3-0 situations.

So what? This is exactly my same point. What are you even arguing here? You came up with this additional flawed hypothesis and now it seems you baiting me into a "arguing for the sake of it" scenario. I'm advocating for the alternation, not for the winner to counterpick first.

The important thing here is just one: under the current rulest (the one used in the tourney) there is no possibility that out of 4 games the winner gets 2 counterpicks and loser just 1. The loser will always get atleast the same amount of counterpicks because he is granted the first one. That in itself is already a facilitation for the loser, aka a bias to keep the series as even as possible despite the outcome of the neutral game.

This is not true. Players counterpick after each of his losses--a maximum of 2. The set does not magically extend to 7 or 9 games. A player will only ever counterpick twice, and in some scenarios it will be twice in a row--but this goes for both players during the set.

Again it seems to me that you're arguing for the sake of it at this point. It was implicit (or pretty fuckin obvious if you prefer) that the loser can't counterpick forever. However with winner picks first he can counterpick till he evens up the score (twice in a row in BO5, 3 times in a row in BO7, and so on).
This is still not fair or, at the very least, not more fair than the current ruleset, despite the fact that it applies to both players.

[deleted_user0]

ah you are right both times, so then there isnt really a difference in series winners with either set.

Exactly. It's refreshing that you have a solid grasp on basic set mechanics.

which means there also isnt really a reason to change the rules, beyond what you and goodspeed disagree upon, its basically you taking the loser's perspective, while goodspeed is taking the winners perspective. both are equally justified.

[lesllamas]

The point is that the sequencing of the counterpicks matters. In a BO3 for example, giving the winner of g1 the first counterpick is unfair, even though theoretically his opponent has an equal number of counterpicks in alternating pick. The reason it is unfair is because it allows for a situation where the counterpicking balance of the games played is uneven (because the set will end once a player reaches the appropriate score threshold). So in BO5, under the current ruleset, it is very possible for two players to play 4 games, 1 of which is neutral, 2 of which are counterpicks for the winner, and 1 of which is a counterpick for the loser (in this 3-1 scenario, the loser is actually the person who won the neutral game 1). If you accept on principle that giving the winner first counterpick in BO3 is unfair, then you must accept that this too, is unfair. The same principle is more abstractly applied in 3-0 situations.

So what? This is exactly my same point. What are you even arguing here? You came up with this additional flawed hypothesis and now it seems you baiting me into a "arguing for the sake of it" scenario. I'm advocating for the alternation, not for the winner to counterpick first.

The important thing here is just one: under the current rulest (the one used in the tourney) there is no possibility that out of 4 games the winner gets 2 counterpicks and loser just 1. The loser will always get atleast the same amount of counterpicks because he is granted the first one. That in itself is already a facilitation for the loser, aka a bias to keep the series as even as possible despite the outcome of the neutral game.

This is not true. Players counterpick after each of his losses--a maximum of 2. The set does not magically extend to 7 or 9 games. A player will only ever counterpick twice, and in some scenarios it will be twice in a row--but this goes for both players during the set.

Again it seems to me that you're arguing for the sake of it at this point. It was implicit (or pretty fuckin obvious if you prefer) that the loser can't counterpick forever. However with winner picks first he can counterpick till he evens up the score (twice in a row in BO5, 3 times in a row in BO7, and so on).
This is still not fair or, at the very least, not more fair than the current ruleset, despite the fact that it applies to both players.

under the current rulest (the one used in the tourney) there is no possibility that out of 4 games the winner gets 2 counterpicks and loser just 1. The loser will always get atleast the same amount of counterpicks because he is granted the first one. That in itself is already a facilitation for the loser, aka a bias to keep the series as even as possible despite the outcome of the neutral game.

--This is false....Player A wins g1, Player B wins g2 on his CP, Player B wins g3 on A's CP, Player B wins g4 on his CP.

I just presented to you a scenario in the current ruleset where the loser of the set gets fewer counterpicks. You wondered why I was getting frustrated with you--this is why. You've repeatedly made claims that are factually, blatantly false in your arguments. I can at least respect GS' argument because it's clear that he's thought it out ahead of time, and umeu who seems to understand basic set mechanics. But with you I have to have the patience of a goddamn saint because you keep presenting arguments based on pure fallacy. And every time I point out the fallacy, you move on and invent a new one.

[iNcog]

Something which isn't being considered is that whether or not we like it, the player with overall better civ knowledge and who has a diverse civ pool has the advantage here, regardless of whether or not they win the first set. Don't forget that some civilizations are also quite better on some maps than others.

In the end if you look at things from a simplified point of view, then the current rules slightly favor the winner of game 1. However, take into accounts maps, civ pools for players, player preferences in terms of match up (Russia isn't a strong civ but I'd rather play vs a top civ than Russia) as well as the fact that just because counter-civ'ing is NOT a free-win, then I think we have very fair conditions here. I'm quite sure that the better player mostly wins.

Fuck, look at H2O picking Sioux straight into acergame's Japan. The man had a plan.. counter pick or not.

[Goodspeed]

The point is that the sequencing of the counterpicks matters. In a BO3 for example, giving the winner of g1 the first counterpick is unfair, even though theoretically his opponent has an equal number of counterpicks in alternating pick. The reason it is unfair is because it allows for a situation where the counterpicking balance of the games played is uneven (because the set will end once a player reaches the appropriate score threshold). So in BO5, under the current ruleset, it is very possible for two players to play 4 games, 1 of which is neutral, 2 of which are counterpicks for the winner, and 1 of which is a counterpick for the loser (in this 3-1 scenario, the loser is actually the person who won the neutral game 1). If you accept on principle that giving the winner first counterpick in BO3 is unfair, then you must accept that this too, is unfair. The same principle is more abstractly applied in 3-0 situations.

So what? This is exactly my same point. What are you even arguing here? You came up with this additional flawed hypothesis and now it seems you baiting me into a "arguing for the sake of it" scenario. I'm advocating for the alternation, not for the winner to counterpick first.

The important thing here is just one: under the current rulest (the one used in the tourney) there is no possibility that out of 4 games the winner gets 2 counterpicks and loser just 1. The loser will always get atleast the same amount of counterpicks because he is granted the first one. That in itself is already a facilitation for the loser, aka a bias to keep the series as even as possible despite the outcome of the neutral game.

This is not true. Players counterpick after each of his losses--a maximum of 2. The set does not magically extend to 7 or 9 games. A player will only ever counterpick twice, and in some scenarios it will be twice in a row--but this goes for both players during the set.

Again it seems to me that you're arguing for the sake of it at this point. It was implicit (or pretty fuckin obvious if you prefer) that the loser can't counterpick forever. However with winner picks first he can counterpick till he evens up the score (twice in a row in BO5, 3 times in a row in BO7, and so on).
This is still not fair or, at the very least, not more fair than the current ruleset, despite the fact that it applies to both players.

under the current rulest (the one used in the tourney) there is no possibility that out of 4 games the winner gets 2 counterpicks and loser just 1. The loser will always get atleast the same amount of counterpicks because he is granted the first one. That in itself is already a facilitation for the loser, aka a bias to keep the series as even as possible despite the outcome of the neutral game.

--This is false....Player A wins g1, Player B wins g2 on his CP, Player B wins g3 on A's CP, Player B wins g4 on his CP.

I just presented to you a scenario in the current ruleset where the loser of the set gets fewer counterpicks. You wondered why I was getting frustrated with you--this is why. You've repeatedly made claims that are factually, blatantly false in your arguments. I can at least respect GS' argument because it's clear that he's thought it out ahead of time, and umeu who seems to understand basic set mechanics. But with you I have to have the patience of a goddamn saint because you keep presenting arguments based on pure fallacy. And every time I point out the fallacy, you move on and invent a new one.

Hang on, that's not right. In your scenario player B is the loser of the first set and he's the one with 2 counterpicks. Garja is correct, in the current ruleset it is impossible for the winner of the first set to have more counter picks than the loser.

Or did I misunderstand something?

[lesllamas]

ah you are right both times, so then there isnt really a difference in series winners with either set.

Exactly. It's refreshing that you have a solid grasp on basic set mechanics.

which means there also isnt really a reason to change the rules, beyond what you and goodspeed disagree upon, its basically you taking the loser's perspective, while goodspeed is taking the winners perspective. both are equally justified.

I'm not sure you can boil it down to be quite that simple. I'd say that I take the perspective favoring longer sets, and that GS takes the perspective favoring deciding the set quickly. It's a position that I can respect, but I don't think it's optimal. It's a well known and accepted maxim of any competition that a longer series, or set, will result in a lesser degree of variance in the outcome. It's the reason why you play longer series or sets as you get further in a tournament style competition. I'd say that it's more of a shame to have a set that may have gone 5 games end at 3-0 than it is to have a set that may have ended in a 3-0 go to 4 games (or 5).

[lesllamas]

Show hidden quotes

The point is that the sequencing of the counterpicks matters. In a BO3 for example, giving the winner of g1 the first counterpick is unfair, even though theoretically his opponent has an equal number of counterpicks in alternating pick. The reason it is unfair is because it allows for a situation where the counterpicking balance of the games played is uneven (because the set will end once a player reaches the appropriate score threshold). So in BO5, under the current ruleset, it is very possible for two players to play 4 games, 1 of which is neutral, 2 of which are counterpicks for the winner, and 1 of which is a counterpick for the loser (in this 3-1 scenario, the loser is actually the person who won the neutral game 1). If you accept on principle that giving the winner first counterpick in BO3 is unfair, then you must accept that this too, is unfair. The same principle is more abstractly applied in 3-0 situations.

So what? This is exactly my same point. What are you even arguing here? You came up with this additional flawed hypothesis and now it seems you baiting me into a "arguing for the sake of it" scenario. I'm advocating for the alternation, not for the winner to counterpick first.

The important thing here is just one: under the current rulest (the one used in the tourney) there is no possibility that out of 4 games the winner gets 2 counterpicks and loser just 1. The loser will always get atleast the same amount of counterpicks because he is granted the first one. That in itself is already a facilitation for the loser, aka a bias to keep the series as even as possible despite the outcome of the neutral game.

This is not true. Players counterpick after each of his losses--a maximum of 2. The set does not magically extend to 7 or 9 games. A player will only ever counterpick twice, and in some scenarios it will be twice in a row--but this goes for both players during the set.

Again it seems to me that you're arguing for the sake of it at this point. It was implicit (or pretty fuckin obvious if you prefer) that the loser can't counterpick forever. However with winner picks first he can counterpick till he evens up the score (twice in a row in BO5, 3 times in a row in BO7, and so on).
This is still not fair or, at the very least, not more fair than the current ruleset, despite the fact that it applies to both players.

under the current rulest (the one used in the tourney) there is no possibility that out of 4 games the winner gets 2 counterpicks and loser just 1. The loser will always get atleast the same amount of counterpicks because he is granted the first one. That in itself is already a facilitation for the loser, aka a bias to keep the series as even as possible despite the outcome of the neutral game.

--This is false....Player A wins g1, Player B wins g2 on his CP, Player B wins g3 on A's CP, Player B wins g4 on his CP.

I just presented to you a scenario in the current ruleset where the loser of the set gets fewer counterpicks. You wondered why I was getting frustrated with you--this is why. You've repeatedly made claims that are factually, blatantly false in your arguments. I can at least respect GS' argument because it's clear that he's thought it out ahead of time, and umeu who seems to understand basic set mechanics. But with you I have to have the patience of a goddamn saint because you keep presenting arguments based on pure fallacy. And every time I point out the fallacy, you move on and invent a new one.

Hang on, that's not right. In your scenario player B is the loser of the first set and he's the one with 2 counterpicks. Garja is correct, in the current ruleset it is impossible for the winner of the first set to have more counter picks than the loser.

Or did I misunderstand something?

By first set, do you mean first game? When I see this: "there is no possibility that out of 4 games the winner gets 2 counterpicks," I take it to mean that he claims in a 4 game set, the winner of the set could not have more counterpicks. If he's failing to specify that "winner" only refers to the player who wins game 1, then it's equally as frustrating to argue with somebody who can't be clear with their thoughts.

Not to mention that he keeps repeating things like "However with winner picks first he can counterpick till he evens up the score (twice in a row in BO5)" which I've been over and is another huge falsehood. If you counterpick twice in a row in a best of 5, it means that you've lost on your first counterpick, and are no longer fighting to even up the score. How many fucking times is Garja going to repeat this when it's just not true. It would require 3 counterpicks in a row which is impossible, and wouldn't be given anyways the moment you won a single game.

[Goodspeed]

Right, so I did misunderstand

[Garja]

The point is that the sequencing of the counterpicks matters. In a BO3 for example, giving the winner of g1 the first counterpick is unfair, even though theoretically his opponent has an equal number of counterpicks in alternating pick. The reason it is unfair is because it allows for a situation where the counterpicking balance of the games played is uneven (because the set will end once a player reaches the appropriate score threshold). So in BO5, under the current ruleset, it is very possible for two players to play 4 games, 1 of which is neutral, 2 of which are counterpicks for the winner, and 1 of which is a counterpick for the loser (in this 3-1 scenario, the loser is actually the person who won the neutral game 1). If you accept on principle that giving the winner first counterpick in BO3 is unfair, then you must accept that this too, is unfair. The same principle is more abstractly applied in 3-0 situations.

So what? This is exactly my same point. What are you even arguing here? You came up with this additional flawed hypothesis and now it seems you baiting me into a "arguing for the sake of it" scenario. I'm advocating for the alternation, not for the winner to counterpick first.

The important thing here is just one: under the current rulest (the one used in the tourney) there is no possibility that out of 4 games the winner gets 2 counterpicks and loser just 1. The loser will always get atleast the same amount of counterpicks because he is granted the first one. That in itself is already a facilitation for the loser, aka a bias to keep the series as even as possible despite the outcome of the neutral game.

This is not true. Players counterpick after each of his losses--a maximum of 2. The set does not magically extend to 7 or 9 games. A player will only ever counterpick twice, and in some scenarios it will be twice in a row--but this goes for both players during the set.

Again it seems to me that you're arguing for the sake of it at this point. It was implicit (or pretty fuckin obvious if you prefer) that the loser can't counterpick forever. However with winner picks first he can counterpick till he evens up the score (twice in a row in BO5, 3 times in a row in BO7, and so on).
This is still not fair or, at the very least, not more fair than the current ruleset, despite the fact that it applies to both players.

under the current rulest (the one used in the tourney) there is no possibility that out of 4 games the winner gets 2 counterpicks and loser just 1. The loser will always get atleast the same amount of counterpicks because he is granted the first one. That in itself is already a facilitation for the loser, aka a bias to keep the series as even as possible despite the outcome of the neutral game.

--This is false....Player A wins g1, Player B wins g2 on his CP, Player B wins g3 on A's CP, Player B wins g4 on his CP.

I just presented to you a scenario in the current ruleset where the loser of the set gets fewer counterpicks. You wondered why I was getting frustrated with you--this is why. You've repeatedly made claims that are factually, blatantly false in your arguments. I can at least respect GS' argument because it's clear that he's thought it out ahead of time, and umeu who seems to understand basic set mechanics. But with you I have to have the patience of a goddamn saint because you keep presenting arguments based on pure fallacy. And every time I point out the fallacy, you move on and invent a new one.

I meant loser of first game, obviously. Player B here won on the opponent counterpicks and also 3 games in a row. Player A won neutral game but failed on his counter pick and lost 3x. Fair win.
But ye I might have counted out the situations where one player multiple breaks the opponent. But in that case one player is again dominating the series so I don't see a problem.

[zoom]

I think the appeal of Lesllamer's suggestion is that you don't get loser of neutral winning 3-1 having two counter-picks to one.

[zoom]

ah you are right both times, so then there isnt really a difference in series winners with either set.

Exactly. It's refreshing that you have a solid grasp on basic set mechanics.

The solidity of Umeå's grasp on basic set mechanics is second to none!

[momuuu]

I think the appeal of Lesllamer's suggestion is that you don't get loser of neutral winning 3-1 having two counter-picks to one.

Somehow this is the first post here that made me realize that. In the current system

Player a wins game 1
Player b cp win
Player b breaks
Player b cp wins

Player b gets 2 counterpicks to one, while not deserving it at all. The winner picks first would mean:

Player a wins game 1
Player b cp wins
Player b breaks
Player a counterpick to even up the score.

In other words, that means the winner picks first system removes the possibility of someone winning the series with an extra counterpick.

That 3-1 scenario is really unfair for player A actually, 1 fair game, 1 counterpick and 2 unfair counterpicked games. Thats the only scenario that is, imo, significantly different. There are otherwise no winners that got to counterpick once more.

[deleted_user0]

and h2o knew he was gonna lose the first game vs acer, so to still close out on 3-1 he designed this evil system!!!

[momuuu]

and h2o knew he was gonna lose the first game vs acer, so to still close out on 3-1 he designed this evil system!!!

Well I didnt actually see the games unfortumately, but H2O turned what should have been a 3-2 into a 3-1. The winner doesnt necessarily differs but it is somewhat unfair. After all, being broken once results into losing unless the other guy breaks back. But yeah this is a convincing reason to go with leslamas's system.

[91]

I like this system you suggest.

And lets be honest. If they use it in smash, that's the best way there is