EPTMLG Winter Championship - Day 3 Recap - Page 12
| Forum Index > News |
|
Dr. Henry Killinger
United States23 Posts
| ||
|
mordek
United States12704 Posts
| ||
|
FuGGu
United States176 Posts
On March 26 2012 10:27 ValhallaDude wrote: Why is it dumb? Why should one player have two chances to beat one player while the other has only one? or Are you being sarcastic in some way by spelling "series" wrong? Extended series is really not fun to watch. Why should someone be punished AGAIN for losing by being behind the next match up that they meet? They have already LOST and the victor is rewarded with a win for the match...so next game between the same players should be a blank slate. And this is totally excluding that extended series matches are just less exciting because you feel like one player is in a deep hole that he can't climb out of (although if they do win it's cool, but it's rare-ish when that happens). | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
How, in gods fucking name, can you be okay with that, then complain... that going to losers bracket and having to start down 2-1 is bad? I hope that you are going to every thread that has a standard elimination system and complaining that its too harsh that players who lose are eliminated. | ||
|
shanelevy
United States23 Posts
On March 26 2012 11:27 FuGGu wrote: Extended series is really not fun to watch. Why should someone be punished AGAIN for losing by being behind the next match up that they meet? They have already LOST and the victor is rewarded with a win for the match...so next game between the same players should be a blank slate. And this is totally excluding that extended series matches are just less exciting because you feel like one player is in a deep hole that he can't climb out of (although if they do win it's cool, but it's rare-ish when that happens). I don't get this logic. When you say that the winner was already "rewarded with a win", lets think about what this reward really is. Without extended series, then the reward is simply that the loser has to play one extra set. In this case, DRG just had to play heart, and then he gets a second chance. And, if he happens to win the second time, then he wins the entire tournament. Why is that bad? If MKP wins 2-0 and then DRG wins in the finals 2-1, then actually DRG wins the entire tournament even though his overall record against MKP was 2-3. MKP actually won more games.With best of 9 finals that's also possible (DRG wins 5-4 after having gone 0-2 before). Without extended series, the ONLY reward for winning the initial winners round finals is that the loser has to face one extra player. In many cases that's not much of a reward at all, especially if the extra match is against someone who the loser can easily beat like HuK or Heart. Having extended series means that players overall score against each other determines who wins, and the larger the sample size of games, the more likely that the more skilled player wins. You made your point "totally excluding" the excitement factor, so I ignored it too. But I will say that DRG was only down 1 game going into the finals, and I found the finals to be very exciting with almost every game being close. | ||
|
Xpace
United States2209 Posts
While the foreign scene is still same ol' Huk#1 Naniwa/Stephano #2. | ||
|
shanelevy
United States23 Posts
On March 26 2012 11:39 CursOr wrote: In most tournaments, if you lose a best of 3, you're out. That is how the GSL rolls, and "standard" tournaments. How, in gods fucking name, can you be okay with that, then complain... that going to losers bracket and having to start down 2-1 is bad? I hope that you are going to every thread that has a standard elimination system and complaining that its too harsh that players who lose are eliminated. Heh, this is an even better point than the ones I made in my post above. In a GSL tournament, DRG would just have been out after losing the first series... | ||
|
Redmark
Canada2129 Posts
On March 26 2012 11:43 shanelevy wrote: I don't get this logic. When you say that the winner was already "rewarded with a win", lets think about what this reward really is. Without extended series, then the reward is simply that the loser has to play one extra set. In this case, DRG just had to play heart, and then he gets a second chance. And, if he happens to win the second time, then he wins the entire tournament. Why is that bad? If MKP wins 2-0 and then DRG wins in the finals 2-1, then actually DRG wins the entire tournament even though his overall record against MKP was 2-3. MKP actually won more games.With best of 9 finals that's also possible (DRG wins 5-4 after having gone 0-2 before). Without extended series, the ONLY reward for winning the initial winners round finals is that the loser has to face one extra player. In many cases that's not much of a reward at all, especially if the extra match is against someone who the loser can easily beat like HuK or Heart. Having extended series means that players overall score against each other determines who wins, and the larger the sample size of games, the more likely that the more skilled player wins. You made your point "totally excluding" the excitement factor, so I ignored it too. But I will say that DRG was only down 1 game going into the finals, and I found the finals to be very exciting with almost every game being close. Because if you don't have extended series the normal way to run double elimination is if MKP loses first set, he gets 'sent to losers' as well and gets a second shot at winning. Also people seem fixated on one-on-one records, so let me just say that extended series doesn't actually ensure that the champion has a winning record against everyone else. If Huk sends Socke to losers, gets eliminated by random other players, and Socke goes on to win the tournament, he would have won with a losing record against Huk, extended series or not. So that's a red herring. Heh, this is an even better point than the ones I made in my post above. In a GSL tournament, DRG would just have been out after losing the first series... Yes, this is what we call single elimination. That is not what MLG uses, given that there is obviously a pool system and a loser's bracket. Irrelevant. | ||
|
CustomKal
Canada749 Posts
On March 26 2012 11:45 shanelevy wrote: Heh, this is an even better point than the ones I made in my post above. In a GSL tournament, DRG would just have been out after losing the first series... Except that DRG was in the championship bracket and played MKP only because he did well in group stages and then 2-0'd heart. By your logic that BO3 of them there should have been the end of the tournament. The reason extended series is flawed is that you could end up in a finals that actually has the person from the losers brackets in the finals being up 2-0 if they had beaten the other finalist in the group stages but didn't take first in their group, while the other took first in their group, wins the winner bracket and their only reward is that they don't get a second chance and infact are now handicapped even though they didn't lose in any elimination games. Either way grats to MKP. He's playing his old school TvZ again with all that aggression. Still couldn't understand why DRG didn't get infestors in that last game. Baneling ling is what is makes marauder and marine so strong when split well (as we learned in GSL season 2 when MKP did it there with pure marines). | ||
|
shanelevy
United States23 Posts
On March 26 2012 11:47 Redmark wrote: Because if you don't have extended series the normal way to run double elimination is if MKP loses first set, he gets 'sent to losers' as well and gets a second shot at winning. Also people seem fixated on one-on-one records, so let me just say that extended series doesn't actually ensure that the champion has a winning record against everyone else. If Huk sends Socke to losers, gets eliminated by random other players, and Socke goes on to win the tournament, he would have won with a losing record against Huk, extended series or not. So that's a red herring. Yes, this is what we call single elimination. That is not what MLG uses, given that there is obviously a pool system and a loser's bracket. Irrelevant. People are complaining that DRG didn't have a chance because of the extended series rules, which put him at a disadvantage. In the GSL, which they were citing as an example of a superior system, DRG would have had LESS of a chance than at MLG. I'd say that's COMPLETELY relevant. The fact that one is single elimination and one is double elimination is what's irrelevant. Also, it's true that extended series doesn't ensure the winner has a winning record against all players, but it ensures they have a winning record against whoever they play in the finals. I think the main point is that without extended series, then you can have two series between two players, and essentially only the second series matters for selecting a champion, who could have a losing record overall. | ||
|
shanelevy
United States23 Posts
On March 26 2012 12:11 CustomKal wrote: Except that DRG was in the championship bracket and played MKP only because he did well in group stages and then 2-0'd heart. By your logic that BO3 of them there should have been the end of the tournament. The reason extended series is flawed is that you could end up in a finals that actually has the person from the losers brackets in the finals being up 2-0 if they had beaten the other finalist in the group stages but didn't take first in their group, while the other took first in their group, wins the winner bracket and their only reward is that they don't get a second chance and infact are now handicapped even though they didn't lose in any elimination games. Either way grats to MKP. He's playing his old school TvZ again with all that aggression. Still couldn't understand why DRG didn't get infestors in that last game. Baneling ling is what is makes marauder and marine so strong when split well (as we learned in GSL season 2 when MKP did it there with pure marines). For the record, if you are referring to my quote, I said that DRG would (not should) have been out and that would have been the end of the tournament. The original question was single elim vs double elim extended series, and that's what I was addressing. I think your point is interesting, but I'm not convinced. Yes, someone who topped their group but lost to one other person could theoretically be handicapped in the finals despite being from the winners bracket. But, in the loser bracket the likely would have had to play many more games which might mean that their overall win/loss would be similar to the player who won their group. I heartily agree on the infestor tech question though. The muta's seemed useless, despite the close air positions, because of the constant aggression. | ||
|
aisight
United States145 Posts
On March 26 2012 12:20 shanelevy wrote: Also, it's true that extended series doesn't ensure the winner has a winning record against all players, but it ensures they have a winning record against whoever they play in the finals. This is not actually true. If A sends B to losers', C sends D to losers', A beats C in Winners' Finals, and D beats B and then C, A vs D in Grand Finals ends up being an ordinary best of 3 set... which I'm not entirely certain is for the best, since even the GSL affords players larger best-of sets the deeper they are in bracket. EDIT: Unless Grand Finals is actually best of 5. I dunno. | ||
|
Powerstrike
50 Posts
| ||
|
Sejanus
Lithuania550 Posts
 MLG format is strange, unlike any other and so on, but I find it as exciting as "normal" formats if not more. P.S. Congrats to MKP  | ||
|
z0li
Romania12 Posts
| ||
|
Tiegrr
United States607 Posts
| ||
|
Betelgeuse
Canada210 Posts
| ||
|
aznball123
2759 Posts
I can see how people think it's unfair, but this is a double elimination tourney, keep that in mind. | ||
|
waylanderm
Netherlands118 Posts
| ||
|
Arcanum
Philippines50 Posts
| ||
| ||
