Continuation Sets

[Nintendude]

A "continuation set" is a special procedure used by MLG when a player or team meets for the second time in a tournament. MLG does a pretty good job of explaining it so I'm gonna copy and paste it here:

If Players are scheduled to play each other for a 2nd time in the Open Bracket, their Match will expand to a Best of 7, include the previous Match, and pick up where that Match left off. For example, if Player A beat Player B 2 Games to 0 in the Winners Bracket, the Best of 7 will resume with Game 3 and Player A leading 2 Games to 0. When the Match is resumed, the loser of the Winners Bracket Match must select the Stage for the upcoming Game. When the Match is resumed, the winner of the Winners Bracket Match must select their Character for the upcoming Game first. The loser of the Winners Bracket Match must then select their Character for the upcoming Game.

MLG has been using this for years, going back to Melee's MLG days. What I'm wondering though, is why this procedure is only used in MLG tournaments. Do people disagree with this rule but don't bother bringing it up because it's MLG? Or do people like it?

To me it seems like a fair procedure, because if you 2-0'd someone in the winners bracket and then got 2-0'd by the same person in the losers bracket, you are 2-2 overall, so neither player really deserves to advance at that point. Unless there are nuances about this rule that can make it unfair, I would like to see it implemented at tournaments besides MLG.

Thoughts?

 

[Jonas]

Well, if the WB match ended with 2-0, the player who lost the match would have to win 4 times in the LB match and only allow his opponent to win once, whereas the player who won the WB match would only have to win twice, and he can allow his opponent to win 3 times. This is a disadvantage the loser of the WB match wouldn't have if he met any other player.

 

[Wobbles]

It's a little annoying because you get circumstances where you can win a larger number of matches than the other guy and lose a tournament, because of the order you won them in.

Normal method:

A beats Z in Winner's Finals: 3-0
Z beats A in Grand Finals: 3-2
Z beats A again: 3-2

A has 7 wins, Z has 6. Z wins the tournament.

Continuation:

A beats Z in Winner's Finals: 3-0
Grand finals is extended to best of 11
A wins, Z wins, Z wins, A wins, Z wins, A wins.
A takes 1st place at 6-3.

Normal rules would have them continuing to play at this point even though A has won the same amount of games Z would need to win to take 1st. That said, it makes comeback victories less likely, and as Jonas said, inflicts additional disadvantages on somebody whose main disadvantage is that they've already lost.

It all comes down to how strongly you feel a player should be punished for finding themselves in loser's bracket.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

In the continuation set the loser starts out on his counter pick. so if the winner won 2-1 then it's really just a really long set and goes on as any other would with the guy who won the 1st match having a counter pick advantage.

 

[mers]

I can see how it's frustrating if you're the one in loser's bracket, but it definitely seems fair that ALL of your games against a given player should be considered when determining the winner of a set. It doesn't seem at all fair for the player in the winner's bracket to "lose" those prior wins when they play you again.

Reducing comeback victories is a bummer, but IMO it's more fair to all players to count all the games.

 

[rathy Aro]

I don't like the idea. You've already worked your way through losers to play this person again, why should you have another disadvantage after all the work? The rule also seems to imply that winning the tournament is about who's better between two people when its really more about how well can you do in the overall competitive environment. Idk if that makes sense, but that's just how I feel.

 

[Tamoo]

I dunno, to me, it just seems a bit lame. I believe a set should just end as a set, and not have any bearing on future sets. If you look at it that way, why don't we take it a step further. In wobbles's example, player z could have lost less stocks than player a so why isn't that taken into account. As much as games are constituents of sets, as are stocks constituents of games, and percentage constituents of stocks etc... The same thing happens in tennis, players end up winning more games, but the opponent won the important games which should count at the end of the day.

 

[Nintendude]

Interesting points on both sides; this was what I was looking for, since I have never read any discussion about this part of MLG's rules before. I'm indifferent about how I feel about it, as Wobbles shows a possible shortcoming of the traditional system yet I would agree it is kinda lame to be that guy who starts at a disadvantage.

 

[pockyD]

It's a little annoying because you get circumstances where you can win a larger number of matches than the other guy and lose a tournament, because of the order you won them in.

Normal method:

A beats Z in Winner's Finals: 3-0
Z beats A in Grand Finals: 3-2
Z beats A again: 3-2

A has 7 wins, Z has 6. Z wins the tournament.

Continuation:

A beats Z in Winner's Finals: 3-0
Grand finals is extended to best of 11
A wins, Z wins, Z wins, A wins, Z wins, A wins.
A takes 1st place at 6-3.

Normal rules would have them continuing to play at this point even though A has won the same amount of games Z would need to win to take 1st. That said, it makes comeback victories less likely, and as Jonas said, inflicts additional disadvantages on somebody whose main disadvantage is that they've already lost.

This whole line of argument is based on the preconception that "normal" rules are better though

If you interpret the situation from the side that continuation sets are better, then the wrong player won under "normal" rules!

"The outcome will be different" isn't a real argument; of course it can be different! (otherwise there's clearly no reason to make the change); the question is whether that outcome is better or worse

 

[adumbrodeus]

Continuation sets are opposed to basic bracket double-elimination theory because it makes some matches harder then others regardless of the skill of the players involved, this therefore causes it to order the players less accurately because a lucky win has more overall effect then simply using two unrelated sets.


This also actually increases the incentive to manipulate brackets by losing sets on purpose to get into losers at specific times in order to have an easier loser's bracket.



No, let's not.

 

[Xona]

Another problem is why not play continuation sets when players who have played each-other in previous tourneys face each-other? Because events from outside the current game should not have an effect on it. By that argument, people who have modded controllers should be able to use them (modded controllers are not actually that useful in reality). I am against continuation sets because it causes events outside of said match to partially decide the final result. Besides, people get better during tourneys, if someone beats me at the start of the tourney, that does not mean that they would be better than me later on. I very well could improve by then more than they did.

That being said, when two players meet at the grand-finals, the loser's bracket winner is already at a disadvantage, why make it worse?

 

[pockyD]

Continuation sets are opposed to basic bracket double-elimination theory because it makes some matches harder then others regardless of the skill of the players involved, this therefore causes it to order the players less accurately because a lucky win has more overall effect then simply using two unrelated sets.

continuation sets actually have the exact opposite effect of reducing the impact of luck

not that i'm for continuation sets (i'm against it simply because i generally prefer to treat sets as the simplest entity when possible), but it's pretty clear that a lot of people don't understand them at all

 

[BigD!!!]

ive always been opposed to continuation sets

the test of whether or not you win in tournaments is whether or not you win a set, which is a predefined amount of games with a strategy that applies to every match you play with someone in a tournament. except in tiebreaker cases in pools (where you have to use something), whether or not you lost a match in a set that you won should be irrelevant to the results.

also, i think that players tend to get over mistakes, switch characters, etc. and find themselves playing very differently at different portions of the tournament. a player who lost already has found themselves in the losers bracket, if theyve addressed the reasons they lost they should have a fresh chance to win the next time they face the player that beat them

 

[everlasting yayuhzz]

New set, new count. It's a new set, treat it as such.