archive by month
Skip to content

AIST S1 results announced early

The AIST S1 results are out far ahead of schedule. I called the favorites as #1 McRave and #2 Tscmoo protoss. The winners turned out to be #1 PurpleSwarm and #2 McRave. Go zerg! But Steamhammer, the other zerg competitor, was the first to be eliminated.

AIST S1 bracket with results

We don’t get to see the games themselves until later. We do know the match results and the map order, so we can infer some of the specific game results.

The rules said that maps would be chosen randomly. I assumed that meant that the map order for each match would be chosen randomly, and games would cycle through the maps. But no, it was literal: For each game, a map was chosen at random. Some matches had repeated maps. For example, in the match McRave 2-0 Tscmoo, both games were played on Third World.

5 is an awkward number for an elimination tournament, as I said before. I expected 1 bye in the first round and 1 in the second, giving an advantage to the bye players. The bracket software instead gave 3 byes, so that the first winners round consisted of only 1 match, MadMix versus Steamhammer. These 2 players started at a disadvantage; if one of them was to come out on top of the winners bracket, it would have to win 1 more match than the 3 bye players. With 1 player in the losers bracket after 1 round, and 3 after 2 rounds, the losers bracket also needed to be split into 2 rounds, disadvantaging another player. MadMix could not be given another disadvantage, so Tscmoo got it.

The rules call for random seeding, so at least it’s fair on average—nobody has an advantage before seeding (only after). But there is no fair way to pair an elimination tournament with 5 players. Some competitors will always have an easier path than others. It’s hard to know when the byes make a difference in practice, but I notice that the 2 winners were the 2 players who were given no disadvantages.

Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments

timmy on :

So when is the final, hehe? In a true double ko the loser of the final should have a second chance, if he hasn't lost yet. McRave lost only once and is eliminated. It isn't done in most sports, because of scheduling and ticket sales. Who buys tickets to final 2, if it might never happen. But for online tournament I'd suggest that for the next edition.

Jay Scott on :

It may not strictly live up to the name “double elimination”, but having the same 2 entrants play 3 matches doesn’t seem to me like a fun way to run a tournament. I’m happy to say that PurpleWave scored 4-3 overall and call it enough. The tournament met its goal of being like a pro tournament, except that a pro tournament can control the number of players through qualifiers.

MicroDK on :

A round robin phase could be used as qualifier to the double elimation rounds... that would be the most fair way to run the tournament.

Jay Scott on :

It would be fair. On the other hand, if the next tournament has 9 entrants, that would be 9 * 8 / 2 = 36 games just to eliminate one of them. Well, the organizer can decide on the best system.

Antiga / Iruian on :

I thought about doing real double elim, but like timmy says it isn't done that way in pro tournament for scheduling etc. For good or ill i'm trying make AIST as much like the pro leagues as possible which comes with the unfairness inherent to the format. It is really difficult with 5 to make it even. Next season will use random map draw for maps but eliminate the ones drawn for redraw until all maps have been played that round. Learned a lot doing it, have a whole list of notes and improvements to do for season 2 which I'm hoping to start around Jan / Feb of next year. Looking forward to the show match which should be played this weekend!

Dan on :

Thank you for hosting! It was a lot of fun.

Jay Scott on :

The reason pro tournaments have groups with elimination and then an elimination bracket is to add drama: Be excited, will your favorite move on? A tournament that releases results after the fact can’t reproduce the drama. Just a thought to consider. With 5 competitors, double elimination took 8 matches while a full round robin would have taken 10 and given much more information. With a large number of competitors, Swiss system can limit the number of matches needed to the same number required by single elimination, and at the same time be nearly as fair as round robin (though less thorough).

Jay Scott on :

Anyway, running a tournament is not simple, and you’ve done a great job so far!

Antiga / Iruian on :

I'll have to give it some thought. I've been thinking about doing the next one live... but I'm not sure yet. With bot issues it can be a bit... crazy.

Jay Scott on :

Another choice is to do it like SSCAIT: Play the games ahead of time and announce them in series.

Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

Form options

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.