best mappool possible atm, gj level cup ;D
btw, amai is from belarus

cyberfight.ru is streaming ? O_o

17:59 h8m3 • there also will be a stream by cyberfight.ru, though there's no link on it yet aswell

dunno

nice mappool!

1st place: ~10€
2nd place: ~5€

':D'

Yeah, but these "prizes" are just formal, tho you still have to fight for them :)
And as far as i know, level team is not sponsored by anybody and all organisation stuff, same as prizes, are initiative of players of that clan themselves.

ye better then nothing anyway

fu with t9

Finally a tournament organiser that has the balls to invent his own decent mappool instead of blindly following the biggest organisations.

crap mappool

your trolling is getting even worst man, unless you are trolling me by making bad troll as a bait, but you arent that smart i guess.

needs more hektik

fu with t9 +1

t7->hektik and it's perfect :)

t9->battleforged

Why House of Decay? the map is so boring;(

to everyone asking about mappool,
there's only 1 premium map since amount of who got premium is still quite low. Even in a situation when one of players got no premium and no player crossed hub out it's quite easy for any of admin to make a private for such rare player couples and invite them.
and hub is just the best premium map atm so it was decided that it's a 5th map


IMHO a cup with 30+ players and mixed mappool is better than <16 players cup with arguable new mappool

nice :) go go ruskie :D

Fuck yes t9, my best friend is back!

oh yes, and big girls are beautiful amirite

:(

"ojojojojoj" :D :P

Hahahaaahaha. Yeah, love it though. Much preferred to "oh my GAAAAWWWWD".

So emotional expression!

brackets online:

http://challonge.com/leVel

Oh my, I forgot it'd be all ztn cup...

More cups the better, nice... :D

nice, t9! plz plus me t9 lovers! :) This map pool should be at iem!

I agree without aero, it's ridiculous for people who only played quake live having to play people who've played it 1000's of times, it's like starting all over again.. :( Maybe we could put in hektik/dismemberment of it

Also..if possible, can an admin get cypher's demo's?

cyberfight's quality is pretty nice.
p.s. ebash davay (c) stream.

and they've got better cfg then gg.ru and better casters. it's a saviour for me, can't stand those goodgame "casters"

ye, thats true.

I predict the underdog cypher will win with his good looks.
I know all of you think its impossible, but i believe in cypher.

And the tournament is still running!

Cypher in looser bracket btw.

wb final
agent - cypher

first lb final
421 - Nitrino

lb final:
cypher - 421

grand final:
cypher - agent
after agent was told that it's double elimination and not full double elimination so that cypher only needs to win 1 bo5 he quitted before the 1st map even started.

Conclusion:
-76 players took part in the cup, how much in last zotacs huh?
-agent is emo

What a shame :( was awake until now, waiting for the grand finale, and then this :/

Anyway. I guess it´s late in Russia too now :)

4 am :d

o_O

so it was double elemination for every player except agent? i dont get this..

quakecon system
http://www.quakecon.org/tournament/masters.shtml

quakecon or not, its unfair for the guy who made it into the final without a loss. he is the one who wont get the second chance.. :/

if he knew this before the tournament, then its his fault.. but still, strange rule..

the rules were posted for few weeks already
what's so strange? it's used quite often(more rarely than full double tho)

It's perfectly fair. It's like a SE tourney with group stage: you can lose in groups, but can't in playoffs. If someone won all group matches - would you say it's unfair because didn't use his chance to lose?
DE before grand final is basically "protection" from random stuff to ensure that it's two best players who reach grand finals. But then only one bo5 is enough to determine who's the champion of the two.

pefectly fair?!?! wtf?! in usual double elemination used for years in tournaments EVERY player has had a second chance! thats what made this double elemination system stable and fair!

Well, I misused the word "perfectly", as of course no reasonably simple system is "perfectly" fair.
The usual DE gives everyone a chance to lose once at any point, but to accomplish this it puts WB finalist in an advantageous position over LB finalist (he has to win less maps to win the final match), so in this sense it isn't fair.
2-staged DE, where grand final is separated from the rest of the tourney, is more fair in sense that every match has equal winning conditions for both players regardless of their previous match history, but you get no second chance if you lose in grand final.
So both systems have their pros and cons, but if we remember that the main point of tournaments is not to provide everyone a chance to lose, but to determine who's the best, the 2-staged system IMHO works better for that particular purpose. Traditional DE reliably determines 2 best players but in the final match gives an advantage for one of them based on his match history which is IMHO not a fair way to determine who of 2 players is the best, while 2-staged DE reliably determines 2 best players and then determines who of them is champion by making them fight fairly in equal conditions.

The usual DE gives everyone a chance to lose once at any point, but to accomplish this it puts WB finalist in an advantageous position over LB finalist (he has to win less maps to win the final match), so in this sense it isn't fair.

that's nonsense. it's absolutely fair that the WB finalist be put in an advantageous position in a normal DE since he, unlike the LB finalist, hasn't lost a match. his 'advantage' is from progressing further in the bracket than his opponent, through winning. this means the same laws apply to every player throughout the entire bracket. it can't get more fair than 'everyone gets a second chance'. the system used in this tourney however is obviously unfair since one player (the loser) gets a second chance and not the other.

really, to take away the double elimination at the latest stage is missing the point of the system entirely. everyone gets the advantage of double elimination except the most deserving player.

No, everyone can still lose a match and continue. If someone didn't lose any matches, it's his trouble, but he still had that opportunity.
If you are climbing mountains using rope for safety, would you consider it unfair if you just simply moved safely and didn't fall down and your rope hadn't had a chance to be used? Double elimination stage is that rope. If you played good and haven't lost - good for you, but the rope WAS there all the time to catch you.

I'm of the opinion that for double elimination to serve its purpose which is to find the most deserving winner it needs to be applied throughout the entire bracket, including the finals. Otherwise there's a danger that the sole player who does not gain advantage from this system, is in fact the one who deserves it the most.

First of all, "find the most deserving winner" and "everyone gets a second chance" are two completely independent things altogether.
I'm of the opinion that elimination system works by eliminating players who show that they are not worthy to be considered as contenders for the top place. When we use single elimination bracket, there is a problem that two halves of the bracket do not intersect anywhere until the final, so we can't compare relative strength of those halves, and we don't know, maybe we eliminated players that are better that those we did not eliminate. So to solve that problem we have DE, where we swap the halves in loser bracket each round thus mixing players from both halves, and therefore we get better detection of who to eliminate. But when we have all players eliminated except the last two, we don't have to mix anything anymore, because we are already comparing them in direct matchup. So, why should any of those last two players get an advantage in determining who of them is to be eliminated (may I remind you that one of the players can lose 3:5 by maps and still the other one will be eliminated)? If we give someone an advantage, then we basically dramatically increase the chance of eliminating someone based solely on his path throughout the tournament. In my opinion, this does not reflect the purpose of "finding the most deserving winner" at all.

First of all, "find the most deserving winner" and "everyone gets a second chance" are two completely independent things altogether.

They are intrinsically related. The main point of giving second chances is to find the most deserving winner and eliminating statistical anomalies. Finding the strongest player is usually the purpose of tournaments in the first place, other placings are generally less relevant. You have a point in that one of the advantages of a DE system is that it provides a way to deal with bad seedings when the best players are grouped together at one end of a bracket, but that particular advantage has more to do with accurately placing players that place anywhere between second place and worse, not so much the eventual winner.

Who is in your opinion most deserved winner in this hypothetic situation:
Player A wins all his matches in winner bracket. Particularly he defeats strenx, spartie and stermy before becomin WB finalist.
Player B has a bad start due to some problem and loses in an early game, but then comes on top in lower bracket, defeating EVERY serious opponent that Player A had to beat (strenx, spartie and stermy), plus some of the other strong opponents (chance and rapha).
Now let's say that this was hypothetically in full DE, and Player B won first bo5, but lost second, with a total map score of 5:3. And this means Player B lost while beating ALL of the (serious) opponents that Player A beat, plus some others that Player A didn't even play, AND beat Player A in map score. But he still lost. Do you consider that player A was most deserved winner in this situation?

I'd value set wins over individual map wins, which is also how the tournament is structured. So I'd value player A, who lost only one set throughout the tournament, over B, who lost two sets, including the grand final one. unless player B is Cooller of course.

Division to sets is made so that the match can end and in a reasonable time, so it's kinda artificial. Map wins statistically provide a better judgement of player's strength, because two sets is statistically not enough data while 8 maps are much better.
Counting lost sets is kinda pointless because first of all, there is already a direct result between these two players, and second, there is not much sense in taking tournament path in account in a game where players often can gain (or lose) strength throughout the tournament. More important is what player can do "here and now" than what was his form in early stages.

you can't have it both ways. either we have elimination with a best-of-X to determine the winner or an all-play-all league with total map scores. we definitely can't take the points system from one and subject it to the other and pretend it has any meaning. according to you such a situation could occur wherein the third place finisher would be the winner of the tournament because he had more map wins...

I don't mean to count the win by map scores, I mean that better player can still have worse set statistics.

Sure.

You could turn this round both ways though through various hypotheticals. Neither system provides a definite way of selecting the best player, but I think DE throughout is more accurate since it gives more samples while at the same time providing equal chances to all players. Then there's those like Aaron and iNkind that believe DE to be nonsense alltogether and believe SE is the fairest way. but they're brits.

The problem with full DE is that finalist coming from loser bracket has very little chance to win. If, for example, two finalists have 50:50 chance to win each other, LB winner has only 25% chance of winning the final. I think it is too unfair price that he has to pay for ensuring that LB winner still has his 2nd chance if some random problem occurs. Basically, if there are two top players in a tournament and they are almost equal in strength, and one of them drops to lower bracket at some point due to random problems, he will almost always lose no matter what, i.e. the winner will be determined by random factor (who of them first encountered problems), not by players' strengths.

He should have less chance to win, he's already lost. If he really is better he can come back. A random problem can just as easily occur to the winner bracket finalist in the first set of maps, but for some reason according to you he shouldn't be awarded the same second chance as the loser did.

Let's say there are two top players in the tournament and they have equal chance to win vs each other.
The probability that one of them drops to LB due to random problem during the several rounds of the tourney is significantly higher than the probability that WB finalist will have random problems in just one final match - i.e. in most situations when one of the top players is dropped in LB, the WB finalist will NOT have any random problems in the grand final.
Yet, the LB finalist will lose with probability of 75%, even though he has equal skill to WB finalist.
So, basically, full DE protects WB finalist much more than anyone else. It is like: "hey, WB finalist, we want to make sure you have your second chance, so we give you 75% winning chance over poor LB guy to protect you from 1% chance of random fail". Actually, full DE system gives "true" second chance only to WB winner while those who had problems during the earlier rounds, instead of their second chance, are crippled too much in the grand final. The "2-phase DE" on the contrary, gives reasonable second chance to anyone who had problems during early rounds, but doesn't give second chance to LB winner. But at the same time, probability of problems occurring to LB winner in one match can be considered insignificant, because it's just one match instead of series that you have to go through to get to the final, and problem can occur in any of the matches from series. So because of these reasons, I think that "2-phase DE" is actually more fair system overall.

So, you say, it's fair that if player hasn't lost yet he should get a free advantage and has easier winning conditions than his opponent. Let's say that cypher won Quakecon winning all games. Should he automatically get (for example) +1 map advantage in all games in IEM Global Challenge? Should an IEM Euro participant get an advantage if he didn't lose any games in qualifiers? Should you get an advantage in playoffs if you won all your group stage matches? But why not then, in all of these cases, other players had a second chance, they could lose a game and still be qualified or get through playoffs (even from 1st place).

So, you say, it's fair that if player hasn't lost yet he should get a free advantage and has easier winning conditions than his opponent.

What free advantage? First, the person who's receiving advantage from the double elimination system is the guy from the loser bracket. If this were single elimination, he'd already be out. So by no stretch of the imagination is the DE format favoring the WB finalist. He'd already have won the tournament if it wasn't for the LB. Now you can ignore all that and simply look at it as "one player has to beat the other twice, while the other only has to win once". That would be unfair advantage if you completely overlook the fact that should the WB finalist win his set, in this case Agent, he has now won two sets total against Cypher and wins the tournament. Likewise, Cypher would need to win two sets to win the tournament.

The advantages of running a DE tournament is that it can reduce fluke wins by awarding second chances to players that may have performed uncharacteristically poorly in a single match, leading to the goal of maximizing the chances of the best man winning. What they seem to have done with this tournament is provide this safety net for all players except the most winningest players, actually changing the tournament format for the final match, in effect creating two seperate tournaments formats. So here Cypher(and all other players, bar agent) enjoyed the fruits of a double elimination system, and when it came to the finals they removed this advantage for agent. So they most likely haven't thought out why they even have a DE in the first place. Certainly they didn't give much thought to player equality, the same rules did not apply to all players which is a nono in a professional tournament.

Let's say that cypher won Quakecon winning all games. Should he automatically get (for example) +1 map advantage in all games in IEM Global Challenge?

no. your problem is that you're thinking different stages of a bracket is equivalent to a new tournament.

in effect creating two seperate tournaments formats

God damn, it, that's EXACTLY what I'm telling you! It's not god damn DE or SE, it's a tournament with two stages:
Stage one: Use a reasonably reliable method to determine best 2 players
Stage two: Clash them together to determine the champion
Let's say that we haven't picked a particular "method" for the stage one yet. What have you got against such a scheme?

no. your problem is that you're thinking different stages of a bracket is equivalent to a new tournament.

Okay, what about group stage / playoffs? Why do you think it's fair to not consider group results in playoffs, but not fair to not consider stage one results in stage two of the above mentioned scheme?

Okay, what about group stage / playoffs? Why do you think it's fair to not consider group results in playoffs, but not fair to not consider stage one results in stage two of the above mentioned scheme?

Group results are very much are considered in playoffs. First, you have to perform better than most other players to advance, second, how you perform in relation to other players that advance determines your seed and thus what calibre of player you face. Look, I understand what you mean but I think such a format, while more convenient for the tournament organisers since it's less time consuming, drastically undermines the purpose of a double elimination system in the first place at the expense of the most deserving player, see #91.

Then it's an argument about the purpose of a DE system. For me, its purpose is not to give everyone and always 2nd chance, but to better determine who is to be eliminated, so that better players are not eliminated instead of worse. And well, when there are only 2 players left, I see only one way to eliminate one of them.

Imho you're the missing the fact that bo1s/bo3s being played in stage 1 don't rly show that player A totally won player B while grandfinal is really deciding, do you really think it's fair that losing bo1/bo3 in early stage to ANY player equals to an obligation to win a bo5 vs the best player so far which hasnt lost in the tourney yet so that after that win the chances of both finalists are equal? And as p4r4 mentioned the point of QC's simple DE is not the same as Full DE which is basically "the winner of tourney doesnt lose twice like everyone else does" but getting 2 best best players in finals where non-losing player got an advantage. And there is a HUGE advantage of choosing map first(unlike in Full DE where 2 players cross out 2 maps, choose 2 maps and the 1st map being playerd is the neutral 5th map left), the chance of winning in such a map sequence is much easier for player from wb. And also considering the fact that the player coming from lb had to play more and stronger players to get into the finals that makes the tourney quite balanced overall

Agent beat him in a best-of-three at the WB finals, so it isn't as if Cypher got knocked down in a first round bo1 as you're trying to make it out to be. The advantage of first map isn't great at all, particularly against Cypher who more than knows all these maps, and it gets even more trivial considering it's a best of five. A fairer way to deal with this, since it is BO5, would be to allow the WB finalist a one-map lead. You're right though of course in that Cypher has to play one extra match coming from the loser bracket, so it's not like he's completely freerolling.

-emo +retard ?

-emo +retarded system

and what about that system makes it not emo or retarded to not play the final, even though the rules were published in advance?

if you say double elimination by itself and don't mention it is like that except for the final, it is misleading.
So i am with agent on this one.
Oh and the system is unfair to begin with for obvious reasons(the champ might have lost the same number of times as the loser).

well yes, it is unfair to some degree.

But, it is not _that_ bad.
People make it sound as if the winner of the wb final is actually worse of than the loser, which is actually not true.

1. He doesn't have to play the lb final.
2. He already has at least 2nd place secured.


So, noone in his right mind would intentionally lose the wb final.
Like wise, noone should want to not play the grand final, no matter if it's 2 Bo5 or one.

"But, it is not _that_ bad."

Well lets assume a guy totally rapes another in wb and then meets him again in the grand final, but loses narrowly because he feels sick or problems with setup etc. Both lost 1 game to each other 1 was rape and 1 was close, worse player wins competition. gg

"So, noone in his right mind would intentionally lose the wb final.
Like wise, noone should want to not play the grand final, no matter if it's 2 Bo5 or one."

Thank god agent has principals and stands by them.

Well lets assume a guy totally rapes another in wb and then meets him again in the grand final, but loses narrowly because he feels sick or problems with setup etc. Both lost 1 game to each other 1 was rape and 1 was close, worse player wins competition. gg

you are ignoring my point.

Would you say losing the wb final is an advantage or not?

I don't care, i love you becks we shouldn't fight <3 :P

it's called a discussion, not a fight ;P

Well, let's assume we have a traditional DE, and a guy from LB final totally rapes WB finalist (3:0 in maps) in first bo5 of "traditional DE" grand final, but loses narrowly in second bo5 (2:3 in maps) because he feels sick or problems with setup etc. Worse player wins competition with winning 3 maps and losing 5 maps to his final competitor, gg.
Basically, no system can completely protect everyone from random glitches or take in account that players can significantly increase their level during a tourney. But the system where grand final has equal winning conditins for both players will determine who's best "right now" more reliable than the same system, but with asymmetrical grand final.

In that case u mentioned how many games did the guy in 1st place lose? and the 2nd place guy?

What meaning do you attribute to number of games lost by a player?

On the other hand, the person from the lb final has to play more games. It's not that simple.

Because he lost, so he has to prove himself. Seems fair to me.

+ the guy who won WB picks the map 1st

Of course! But then should the wb finalist start with a 1:0 score?

I think so, then what would be the motivation to be on wb?
Getting to final of lb is usually easier although u play some more game. So if he/she didn't get that 1:0 advantage they would lose to get to lb, get easy wins and save their tricks for the final.

I think the fairest way to reward the grand final player who didn't lose a game previously in a double elimination tournament is to let them pick the first and all subsequent maps of the final.

interesting idea...i support the qcon notion of only doing one grand final. as doing 2x bo5 rewards the less tired player prly

[+]

lol agent's such a pussy

Isn't aero almost the same map as T9? The map everyone said was boring? Both are small maps, you can rack up kills very fast.
Only difference is, it's easier to gain control than T9 since the rail is available. To me, aero is simply aim, aim, aim. Rarely anyone uses any brains on it.

and here I thought ESR was invite only, then you showed up, posting crap. gj!

Totally agree aero is a 0 brain map.
Even battleforge is better and more brain.

that must be why it is the best map by pretty much the smartest player in quake.

k1llsen isn't the smartest player.

czm...

being the smartest person to play quake (which might not be true) =/=
playing quake the smartest.

he did both

Insan3 i love you for being PT and being handsome, but quake live is a game which requires more intelligence then quake 3 imo. The damage of aim heavy weapons like rail and shaft have been reduced. In QL i have never seen czm beat a guy that had good timing and with more accuracy then him, that says a lot.
Oh and socrates owes me money :'[

afaik czm never played quakelive seriously did he? x: correct me if i'm wrong please!

I don't know, i am just happy czm is back.
He outmaths everyone at least :P

hope he's back for good and starts playing seriously! :D

aerowalk is horrible. it is such a bad map. favors too much combat, not on tactics.

.

how about some demos? :*

Demos

can you upload to better hosting like rapidshare or megaupload please :/

Demos on another hosting. Still in russian tho, so press 'Cka4aTb' (its in cyrilic), wait for 60 seconds and click 'Cka4aTb' link which will appear right above the timer.

gj for uploading, but where do we have to click to download? ;D

^^

ifolder: do like picture
or
rapidshare
megaupload

ty ;)

1 Cypher
2 agent
3 421
4 Nitrino

Sry for ifolder, my bad :P

thx Lamur.