### What actually happened.

Gríx

Member

You know what we have to do. Boycott WCG.

wqqqqwrt

Senior Member

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Foot
I honestly don't know what you expect to get out of an LoL esport.

This is the single worst community on the face of the planet. League of Legends players are some of the rudest, sleeziest, and immoral trolls on the planet, and Riot damn-near protects them from removal.
Just want to see videogames respected and the genre to be good whole-hearted community fun
right now it is corrupt.

FlyingKiwi

Senior Member

I really don't know why Riot continues to let Matt Marcou make professional LoL esports look like ****...

ChiefMasterWhite

Senior Member

tell em whats up regi

Beebolol

Junior Member

Up voted to support Regi and CDE.

cravenfear

Senior Member

this seems like a pretty obvious screw up on wcg's part or rather the powers that be in this particular case, that matt marceau fellow i presume

NGRT

Member

Quote:
Originally Posted by Korzik
Does have a point.
let me help you understand the math of this whole issue, and why their posted rules are better than this bull**** they pulled by making it best of 3 sets, with 3 games per set, with one set advantage.

double elimination is a tournament format where you need to lose twice to be eliminated. it is essentially a last man standing tournament format, with each participant having two lives.

every game up until the losers/winners finals were best of 1 set, 1 game per set. losing a game means you lose one 'life'. each life is worth exactly one game, which is also exactly one set.

in the finals, dignitas had two lives left, because they had not lost yet. cde had one life left, because they did lose once.

the ratio of lives from winners to losers bracket is 2/1.

by playing a weighted best of 3 with a one game advantage to the winners bracket team (the mathematical equivalent of playing a best of 3 sets, 1 game per set), they insure that the number of game losses and the ratio of lives between the winners and losers bracket remains constant.

by moving to a best of 3 sets, 3 games per set, one set advantage, for the winners bracket team, they have just skewed the advantage that the winners bracket team gets over the loser bracket team.

now, each 'life' that each team has, which was equivalent to losing one set, which was equivalent to losing one game, is instead worth losing two games within a set, due to expanding the number of games played in a set.

this inflates the value of a 'life' from 1 game into 2 games. 2/1 becomes 4/2. the ratio might remain the same, but the number of games that each life is worth, is inflated multiplicatively. that means that every life that a team has going into the finals is worth more now, than it was earlier in the tournament. this is without even taking into account that the path through losers finals means that the losers side actually has to play more games to reach the finals in the first place.

had they stayed with their posted rules, this would have been fine, and the value of a team's remaining 'lives' would have remained constant and it would have been mathematically fair. by inflating the number of games played in the finals, they inflated each life value, and thus giving the team with more lives, the winners team, more of an advantage than earlier in the tournament.

Shoumck

Member

bump

TheHart

Junior Member

I approve of this message

therefore i shall bump