NWC Tournament Disqualifications - Tit and kynesie

[gibson]

At no point does losing a game improve your chances of winning a set.

But if you’re convinced of that, I recommend you try it and prove us all wrong! Strategic forfeiture, will we see it at LAN???

It doesn't increase your chances of winning the series, but it does increase your chance of winning the next game,which is stupid

[SoldieR]

Actually in alternating pick there's more potential for come backs. If the worse player wins when counter picked on, then they get to counter pick the next game.

[Cometk]

At no point does losing a game improve your chances of winning a set.

But if you’re convinced of that, I recommend you try it and prove us all wrong! Strategic forfeiture, will we see it at LAN???

It doesn't increase your chances of winning the series, but it does increase your chance of winning the next game,which is stupid

It's stupid to be put at a disadvantage when you're already losing a series 2-0.

[[Armag] diarouga]

At no point does losing a game improve your chances of winning a set.

But if you’re convinced of that, I recommend you try it and prove us all wrong! Strategic forfeiture, will we see it at LAN???

It doesn't increase your chances of winning the series, but it does increase your chance of winning the next game,which is stupid

It's stupid to be put at a disadvantage when you're already losing a series 2-0.

It's stupid to be put at a disadvantage, period.
Now we obviously have to force a player to pick first, else it's going to take forever before we start a game, so alternative pick is better because each player gets to play with an advantage/disadvantage.
Why should the loser have an advantage? He lost with an advantage, so what?

[HUMMAN]

Yeah i dont think it increases change of winning series,
since worse starts to win more, picking format gets close to alternate picking in terms of picking counts. However since worse player always have an advantage of counterpick as long as he loses; games will be closer since worse player always have a bonus of civ. It may also imply closer series since worse player have higher chance if he continues losing, compared to alternate pick.
However as worse player starts to win more, this advantage turns into a disadvantage.

[lesllamas]

If a player that is legitimately worse wins a series because of a ruleset, then it must be assumed that an aspect of that ruleset gave a player a competitive advantage over their opponent that made up for the difference in skill.

Any player in top 8 should try to squeeze every competitive advantage out of the ruleset that they can.

I fully expect to see Kaiser and Diarouga a way to exploit the advantages conferred upon players in WPF environment by forfeiting selected matches to make sure his opponent can never take advantage of these unfair rules!

But what happens when Diarouga and Kaiser play each other??? It’ll be a race to forfeit, lest one player give the other the dreaded advantage of being down a game!

[Cometk]

Show hidden quotes

At no point does losing a game improve your chances of winning a set.

But if you’re convinced of that, I recommend you try it and prove us all wrong! Strategic forfeiture, will we see it at LAN???

It doesn't increase your chances of winning the series, but it does increase your chance of winning the next game,which is stupid

It's stupid to be put at a disadvantage when you're already losing a series 2-0.

It's stupid to be put at a disadvantage, period.
Now we obviously have to force a player to pick first, else it's going to take forever before we start a game, so alternative pick is better because each player gets to play with an advantage/disadvantage.
Why should the loser have an advantage? He lost with an advantage, so what?

The only relevant difference between alternating pick and winner picks first is game 3 in a Bo5 series when one player is up 2-0. Even if the player who is down in the series wins game 3, he is going to get counterpicked in the next two games. His likelihood of winning the series remains unchanged.

[Goodspeed]

Momentum. Maps. Staying in the series longer gives you more potential for a comeback.
It's not just a question of statistics. We've had this discussion before btw https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... icks+first

[lesllamas]

Momentum. Maps. Staying in the series longer gives you more potential for a comeback.
It's not just a question of statistics. We've had this discussion before btw https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... icks+first

I look forward to the strategic forfeitures at LAN that will take advantage of this counterpick momentum to propel players to victories!

Leave no competitive advantage unsqueezed, I say!

[HUMMAN]

Also GS's scenario is also possible in alternate pick, regarding his momentum statement.

P1: OP P2:Bad
Game 1: P1 wins He is just good
Game 2: P1 wins (p2 picks first) OP
Game 3: P2 wins ( P1 picks first) Countered, lol?
Game 4: P2 wins (p2 picks first) Oh too sad, not prepeared for map bad player wins. Also no hunt and lag.

Suddenly game is 2-2 from 2-0 under same terms. It really doesnt matter if winning chance is higer if worst player keeps losing. However if OP player runs out of civs or something that may be a problem.

[robo]

I think something you need to consider is, tournaments are not purely an event for players to compete and claim the crown of being the best. It is also entertainment. If you want people to put money/time/effort into the scene you want to have enjoyable games to watch.

Is a 3-1 more entertaining than a 3-0? Most of the time yes, you see more matchups, and more games. People are more likely to watch and that contributes to future events.

In AoE2 for about 20years the competitive standard was mostly mirror games between the best civs on particular maps (Huns on Arabia, Vikings on water maps etc) but that isn't overly fun to watch 30x the same matchup for weeks on end. So we had to create different settings and civ drafts and other means of making matchups interesting and therefore increasing viewer engagement.

[Kaiserklein]

Sigh. Not true Kaiser. "Momentum" is the only thing that might differ the outcome. Probability of winning some games becomes higher but winning series remains same if momentum is out of equation. Simple statistics...

Come on you know very well it makes it easier for the worse player to win overall... It's not just about stats. If the series is closer because the weaker player gets to win thanks to counterpick to begin with, it helps him a lot, instead of potentially getting clean swept or having just a less close series. Dunno if that's what you call momentum, but psychologically it helps a lot. The guy who's winning the series just happens to be a in really weak position at some point, which isn't the case with normal rules.

[Riotcoke]

I think something you need to consider is, tournaments are not purely an event for players to compete and claim the crown of being the best. It is also entertainment. If you want people to put money/time/effort into the scene you want to have enjoyable games to watch.

Is a 3-1 more entertaining than a 3-0? Most of the time yes, you see more matchups, and more games. People are more likely to watch and that contributes to future events.

In AoE2 for about 20years the competitive standard was mostly mirror games between the best civs on particular maps (Huns on Arabia, Vikings on water maps etc) but that isn't overly fun to watch 30x the same matchup for weeks on end. So we had to create different settings and civ drafts and other means of making matchups interesting and therefore increasing viewer engagement.

Still wouldn't be surprised if the final was just mirror matches

[Goodspeed]

Momentum. Maps. Staying in the series longer gives you more potential for a comeback.
It's not just a question of statistics. We've had this discussion before btw https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... icks+first

I look forward to the strategic forfeitures at LAN that will take advantage of this counterpick momentum to propel players to victories!

Leave no competitive advantage unsqueezed, I say!

Cute

[lesllamas]

Momentum. Maps. Staying in the series longer gives you more potential for a comeback.
It's not just a question of statistics. We've had this discussion before btw https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php ... icks+first

I look forward to the strategic forfeitures at LAN that will take advantage of this counterpick momentum to propel players to victories!

Leave no competitive advantage unsqueezed, I say!

Cute

It’s cute that you have to resort to ad hominem when confronted with the cognitive dissonance of your own position!

[gibson]

Having the loser counter pick rewards losing and punishes winning. This is a fact. Contrary to the strawman that @lesllamas keeps using, counterpicking one game doesn't give as big an advantage in a series as actually winning a game obviously, but it's an advantage nonetheless. The point robo made is very valid and obviously the reason why this rule was out in place, it leads to more competitive and entertaining series. Again this just goes to show that it gives the worse player an advantage since in a long series they'll get more counterpicks and will be more likely to won a game or two early.

[Cometk]

@gibson the number of counterpicks per player does not change should the series go longer than a clean sweep. the only difference is the order in which players counterpick each other

[gibson]

@gibson the number of counterpicks per player does not change should the series go longer than a clean sweep. the only difference is the order in which players counterpick each other

yes?

[lesllamas]

Having the loser counter pick rewards losing and punishes winning. This is a fact. Contrary to the strawman that @lesllamas keeps using, counterpicking one game doesn't give as big an advantage in a series as actually winning a game obviously, but it's an advantage nonetheless. The point robo made is very valid and obviously the reason why this rule was out in place, it leads to more competitive and entertaining series. Again this just goes to show that it gives the worse player an advantage since in a long series they'll get more counterpicks and will be more likely to won a game or two early.

I’m not making a strawman. I’m addressing the already built man—the argument posited earlier that WPF results in an unfair advantage for a player that leads them to win a set they otherwise shouldn’t have won (because they are presumably worse).

[Imperial Noob]

Remember the times when grand finals were 5-0? What a cool era that was.

[Kaiserklein]

I think something you need to consider is, tournaments are not purely an event for players to compete and claim the crown of being the best. It is also entertainment. If you want people to put money/time/effort into the scene you want to have enjoyable games to watch.

Is a 3-1 more entertaining than a 3-0? Most of the time yes, you see more matchups, and more games. People are more likely to watch and that contributes to future events.

In AoE2 for about 20years the competitive standard was mostly mirror games between the best civs on particular maps (Huns on Arabia, Vikings on water maps etc) but that isn't overly fun to watch 30x the same matchup for weeks on end. So we had to create different settings and civ drafts and other means of making matchups interesting and therefore increasing viewer engagement.

I personally like your rules better than the regular esoc ones. I think this tourney had entertaining series partly thanks to that.
Was just arguing for the sake of it against people saying that it doesn't favour the weaker player

[Cometk]

@Kaiserklein it certainly gives a marginal advantage to the player who's performing worse in the series, but should not change the outcome of series' and is not an unfair format, as some others have been arguing.

Again this just goes to show that it gives the worse player an advantage since in a long series they'll get more counterpicks and will be more likely to won a game or two early.

@gibson the number of counterpicks per player does not change should the series go longer than a clean sweep. the only difference is the order in which players counterpick each other

yes?

Just wanted to make clear there wasn't a misunderstanding since your wording is a bit strange.

[Kaiserklein]

Well if it helps one of the players it's unfair by definition lol, and thus can potentially change the outcome of the series.
However I believe it's not too unfair, and since it makes for more entertaining series I like it. Might be biased though since I haven't suffered from the rules myself as a player, but I enjoyed it a lot as a caster (and when casting, having entertaining series is even more important than when watching)
Plus there are no perfectly fair rules anyway so whatever

[BrookG]

Balance isn't too tilted towards certain civs in a given MU. The skill is more important imo, one player being better is more significant than MU choice.

[Cometk]

Well if it helps one of the players it's unfair by definition lol, and thus can potentially change the outcome of the series.
However I believe it's not too unfair, and since it makes for more entertaining series I like it. Might be biased though since I haven't suffered from the rules myself as a player, but I enjoyed it a lot as a caster (and when casting, having entertaining series is even more important than when watching)

Well that’s still wrong. You could say it’s unfair that the 2-0 player gets an advantage in game 3 using standard esoc rules. Then both rulesets are unfair. Moot point.