Continuation Rule?


#1

I just heard this podcast on the Orochinagi show


Keits also spoke a little bit about it on yesterday’s live stream of WakeUp SRK

During the first 15 minutes, they talk about a rule that’s being used in the fighting game tournaments at the MLG. I’m not sure if they use this on their other games, but I’m only going to refer to fighting games for the rest of this thread.

If I got it right, the continuation rules work as it follows:

If you send a player to losers bracket, and you end up fighting against that same player in grand finals or losers bracket, you get to keep whatever advantage you got over the other player.
For example, if we played on winners bracket and you beat me 3-0, and then we meet again in grand finals which is supposed to be a 4/7 set, then you only have to win 1 game to win the tournament because you’re already up 3 games while I would have to win 4 games.

Now, that’s for grand finals, if you happen to meet me again in the losers bracket, then instead of playing a regular 3/5 we would play a 4/7 set, and you would again be only 1 game short of beating me while I would have to win 4 games.

I was wondering what the community’s opinion was on this. I personally think this is a terrible idea for a fighting game tournament, because you are hurting one of the things that makes fighting games so amazing, and that’s adaptation.

Do you remember EVO 2009??
J Wong came back from losers, and won the first set, then Sanford adapted once more showing one of the best Cable plays in MVC2 history.
Non of this amazing matches would have been possible is this terrible idea would have been applied.
Just look at this amazing set
[media=youtube]bfM5uS-IabA[/media]

There are hundred of examples like Daigo vs JWong’s FeiLong on SF4, John Choi vs Ohnuki in ST etc etc etc
I really don’t support this format.


#2

They’ve used it for Halo and SC2 and now FG’s. SC2 community has pitched a fit about it since day one … and let’s be real, SC2 has way more sway with MLG than the FGC does. But it remains.

tl;dr: Nobody likes it, MLG knows nobody likes it, but they insist on using it anyway.


#3

It’s a stupid rule, in fact, I don’t think anybody likes the rule. The exciting part of the re-match is that you’re able to see how effectively each player managed to adapt to their opponent’s playstyle, and they are able to be rewarded for doing so by winning a fair set. This rule only adds a ‘slippery slope’ mechanic onto a tournament bracket that never needed it.


#4

It’s a monumentally stupid rule, and as long as MLG insists on doing things like this for no reason other than “we’ve done it before”, they’ll never get “in” the FGC.


#5

With as many things about this MLG thing that I am sketchy about this is not one of them or if it is its way down the list.
How are people acting like we have some kind of iron clad rule of how a set works when we have always been using the looser of the two major fighting game tournament formats in this country. In japan its pretty much always been single elimination and if you lose you’re out, hell alot of the time its single elimination with character lock. Our system allows second chances and counter picks. I’m not saying that this couldn’t end up as a catastrofuck, but to be honest it only kicks in for a situation not possibly in single elim, so in a sense its a bit like rich people problems.

American player: This is bullshit, my second chance wasn’t a reset.
Japanese player: You got a second chance?


#6

When you frame it in the way that you have it which is incorrect, it sounds retarded.

The sets for the fighting games at MLG are best of 5 games. If there is a case of double jeopardy in the losers bracket, the set continues where it was left off and it turns into a best of 11 games.

This is incorrect since all of the sets are 3/5. If you meet your opponent again, the person who sent you to losers would still need to win another 3 games to win the tournament, not 1 since the rule would come into effect and turn it into a best of 11 games. Since you did not win any games, you would need to win 6 games to win the tournament.

I don’t see how this particular rule hurts adaptation when it forces you to play more games.

I know that people want to cite this one particular rule to make it seem like MLG doesn’t have a clue on what they’re doing, but people can’t even get the rule correct to begin with before they’re quick to call it retarded. And at the end of the day, this rule isn’t going to stop anyone from going to MLG and getting that eSports money.

Also, here’s a link to the rule instead of having someone else tell you what they think the rule is, and judge for yourself.

http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/competitions/30#event_88_competition-format


#7

The example that Im using comes straight from the podcast linked.
Thats the way that Oscar (The Answer, commentator at MLG) explained it.
They start talking about it around the 10 minute mark.
Check it out.


#8

http://www.gytnews.com/articles/commentary/understanding-the-continuation-rule.html
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=316148

Nobody likes it, they used it for Halo and just copy pasted those rules to every game. Sundance was saying it’s like a +5% of making sure the best person wins or something on the vvv show yesterday and he doesn’t want the best that day but the best person through out the tournament and something about this way the winner is the person who wins the most yadda yadda yadda.

Nobody likes it, MLG isn’t changing it.

More concerned about the monitors they are using for fighting games now that Art mentioned what monitor they were using (thought they would use the ASUS or something from this site’s sub 1 frame HDTV list)


#9

I don’t necessarily like talking smack about how other people want to run events and play in events, and I do understand the thought process from which the continuation rule was created, but it is a truly flawed logic.

Where the rule stems from:
In a normal double elimination bracket that uses best 3 out of 5 games per set (a.k.a. first to 3 games takes the set)… if Player A beats Player B 3-0 in their first set, and then Player B beats player A 3-2 in their second set, then Player A gets eliminated while Player B advances, even though Player A has actually won 5 games total while Player B has only won a total of 3 games. I get how, when examining their two sets together in a vacuum, the knee-jerk reaction is to say that this doesn’t sound right.

Why the rule is “unfair”:
While this same rule CAN affect any players in the same capacity (and thus is technically fair), it WILL only affect a small number of players that have been entered into the tournament. As such, for any players who are directly impacted by this rule (ie. participate in a re-match in which the continuation rule is in effect): their individual “journey” through the bracket has now become subject to a different set of rules than that used for every other player in the tournament. This makes the rule practically unfair; that is to say, those players’ two sets become unfair within the context of the bracket as a whole.

I am not arguing a philosophy or a point of view here. Everyone is entitled to have his or her own opinion and that’s great. But the continuation rule is mathematically, algorithmically, logically an arbitrary desychronization within the rest of the double-elimination bracket tournament format. And THAT’s what I call WRONG. Academically, I would use the word “error” to describe the continuation rule because it is incongruent with how the rest of the bracket functions, which makes the format discontinuous.

And this is all without even touching upon the subjective matter of player adaptation, and that again is all without even mentioning the phenomenon of character counter-picking!

If they want to use it and players want to use it, sure, whatever, it’s their event and that’s cool; I sincerely hope that everyone in attendance has fun. But I don’t like this rule at all. And judging from everything I’ve heard so far, none of us do.


#10

The continuation rule is inherently non-competitive. Being in the winners bracket is already a massive advantage. Being sent to losers is already a massive disadvantage. Making double jeopardy situations even worse for the person sent to the losers bracket first is simply a terrible idea. When a tournament chooses to distance itself from the competitive community by using an ill-conceived, non-standard rule set, the results are by definition not legitimate.


#11

In case you guys haven’t realized, Sundance is a jerk and a dictator who thinks he knows everything. That’s why he has no chance of lasting long with a community known for how tightly bonded they are.


#12

MLG at this point really only appeals to anyone who has a chance of winning instead of like a community event where after you get knocked out the tourney and still be able to stick around the venue and play some casuals/friendlies instead of just watch. More bang for your buck and cheaper to boot.

RTS has created this culture where the top players are like celebrities and have signing sessions and shit so those attendees get more out of attending. Most here would rather play a few games or challenge them to a MM and get drinks with the top players.


#13

[FONT=Helvetica]

This is the main differences between “esports” and the fighting game communities. The former cater to the top percentage, while the latter try to include all players that are willing to go and participate. It’s why despite the shit that goes on a lot of the time, ALL the fighting game communities are fucking awesome, because in the end we’re more equal than esports.
[/FONT]


#14

MLG is an American company trying to run American FG tournaments… JP format is irrelevant, and I have no doubt you’re aware of how well-established the double-elim Bo3/Bo5 format is here. In the months leading up to their FG announcements MLG had talked about how they want to do right by the FGC … they knew people were iffy about MLG and how they want to run things. They talked about how they want to bring players in to consult/help/run stuff, and then they go and botch something as simple and established as bracket format.

Will it stop anyone from going to MLG? Hell no. If I were closer I’d be there myself. But it’s silly that they won’t relent on a rule that’s known to be so disliked.


#15

I heard about it a long time ago way before the whole FG esports crap, but forgot on which podcast (avoiding the puddle maybe?), and yeah it’s a dumb rule that has nothing to do with the games themselves. Probably just wanted to save time and stuck with it.


#16

lol sorry to KoF and MK players who have to endure these retards just to get your games some screen time

maybe if you’re lucky they won’t decide to make a few arbitrary bans


#17

Summary of the continuation rule :

Player one bodies player two Once they meet up again player two has to redeem himself from the first time then settle the score. In the end the player that has the better record between the two will advance. Continuation rule prevents the player with the worse record from advancing. Sundance mentioned giving 97% of what the community wants, just not that 2%. The rule made for some sick comebacks in Tekken and maybe Smash when MLG still hosted them.


#18

It’s stupid.


#19

I’m sure though, when the FGC finally gets over their fear of the power of money, and fully merges with MLG, that MLG will budge on things like this for them, since they care deeply about what the players in their games’ communities want.


#20

MLG is a fucking joke.