|
People arguing for extended series claim that it makes sense for the player that wins the Bo7 to move on. I get that. But I think these people need to consider the consequences of doing this.
Let's set up the usual extended series circumstances. Andy and Bob meet in WB round 1. Andy beats Bob 2-1 so that Andy goes on to WB round 2 and Bob drops to LB round 1. Now let's skip ahead to WB round 4. Andy won WB rounds 2 and 3 but loses in WB round 4. This sends Andy down to LB round 6 (you can double check me on that, but I think I'm right). Bob has also made it to LB round 6 by winning in LB rounds 1-5. Now Andy and Bob meet again.
Here is where the extended series begins. People that want it say we need to think about the complete tournament performance and not just think about each series as a seperate event. I agree. Let's do this.
Andy and Bob are in a Bo7 now, which replaces (or consumes, if you will) their previous Bo3. The intent of this is to prevent Bob from winning a Bo3 2-1 and leaving the complete tournament performance between Andy and Bob as a 3-3 "undecided". We now have have a Bo7 matchup between them that continues their original Bo3 and decides who goes on and who gets eliminated.
Let's step outside the Andy/Bob head-to-head now and look at their complete tournament performance. We can say that the extended series is equivalent to Andy and Bob playing Bo3's against other players and one Bo7 against each other. Note that in this context, even though Andy and Bob are considered on equal footing by the tournament (winner of Bo7 goes on in LB, loser gets eliminated), we see that their tournament performance is NOT on equal footing. Andy is 2-1 in Bo3's and Bob is 5-0. This is HUGE. Andy's elimination condition is losing a Bo3 and a Bo7. Bob's is losing a single Bo7. Note that this is ALWAYS the case in extended series (finals excluded). This is not considering complete tournament performance.
Extended series is a special case rule that trades bracket fairness for head-to-head matchup fairness. People need to ask themselves which is worse: that Andy gets eliminated by Bob despite going 3-3 against him (or in some cases 3-2 or 2-2), or that Bob and Andy are thrown into a Bo7 on equal footing despite that NOT being the case (Andy lost a Bo3, Bob did not)?
Beyond this question I can argue no more. If people really think that head-to-head matchup fairness is THAT important, then I can't argue any more to convince them that extended series is bad. Personally I cannot see how people can be so worried about Andy's head-to-head score with Bob that they ignore and consider less important the fact that Andy has lost to someone else in a Bo3, Bob has not; then in addition they claim that extended series is in the interest of complete tournament performance of the players.
|
it's what made boston beating new york in the semifinals that one year so epic
|
On December 03 2010 13:29 dezholling wrote:
Andy's elimination condition is losing a Bo3 and a Bo7. Bob's is losing a single Bo7. Note that this is ALWAYS the case in extended series (finals excluded). This is not considering complete tournament performance.
Thats a very good point, doesn't seem fair to me.
|
I've come up with an extended series that makes sense:
If you lose 2-0 in the winner's bracket and play against a person who lost 2-1 in the winner's bracket, you're going to play a Bo5 where he starts with a one-game lead.
I really think that this makes a lot more sense. Thoughts?
|
why try to fix something broke when you can just remove it and be better because of it? =)
|
i think its a stupid rule, but partly because incontrol intimidated me into disliking it when he was interviewed by his girlfriend uncontrollable at mlg dallas lol
|
MLG SUCKS end of story.com
User was banned for this post.
|
On December 01 2010 14:49 Sad Hermit wrote:
wtf kind of vote is undecided, if you dont know what you want to vote for then dont vote
Being undecided has it place in a poll, if the new formula doesn't bother you that much then you are undecided.
And there is 20% undecided at the moment, pretty significant
|
The dealbreaker for me concerning the extended series is that it can ruin the excitement in the finals (if one player gets to start with an advantage over his opponent).
|
Extended Series is Bad
Extended Series is double Punishment. Its like getting taxed twice.
What makes it worse is that this double punishment is random.
When you lose a game you get punished by getting knocked to the losers bracket.
If you dont meet the person who knocked you down you only get that initial punishment.
If you BY CHANCE meet the person again due to how the brackets fall you get punished twice.
Anything that randomly punishes a competitor is bad.
Extended series has no benefit.
What extended series offers is already provided by the double elimination format
The idea behind extended series is that it helps seemingly unfair eliminations giving you a buffer
However you already get a buffer of 2 lives. No other tournament format gives this generous luxury.
Anything that serves no purpose just complicates things and should be removed
The only time the concept of an extended series is applicable is when the champion of the winners bracket faces the champion of the losers bracket.
The champion of the winners bracket is the only person who has yet to lose a series and essentially still has a (non redeemable) get out of jail free card. The fact that they have faced before or not is irrelevant.
Even still i would be hesitant convert that to any free games. Maybe they get to choose a map.
Extended series is Bad, It randomly punishes people. It serves no benefit. In its current form it should be removed.
|
I think of it like this.. the possibility of getting kicked out of the tournament against a guy you won more games against in that tournament (2-0 then 1-2) is worse than arbitrarily having to win more games against someone to advance in the loosers bracket.
The only thing i could say against the extended series is that it might be unfair that some people meat people they played before again and others don't. Those who only play each opponent once in the tournament have kind of an advantage over those who have to play an extended series.
|
In my opinion, the only place where this rule makes sense is in the championship match. The player who has won every series up until then should go into a Bo7 up by 1-0, imo. Everywhere else, this doesn't make sense, and I don't understand how this would make sense in any other game/sport.
|
Extended series is losing your first Bo3 and then playing with a diaper full of poo during your second set of Bo3 after you just finished playing 7 sets in a row.
Group play(128)-> 32 Player Bo3 ->16 Player Bo3 -> 8 player Bo3 -> Semi Bo5 -> Finals Bo7
No extended series. If someone plays the person again after group play in the bracket then it's like they never played them.
Wow, i feel like i just cured cancer with that solution. I don't understand why MLG won't change it. The players obviously don't like it, and a good player in SC2 isn't on Straight Ripping and doesn't need a gimmie to not get upset by some unranked person.
|
TL should run MLG. Imagine half of the TL staff getting flown and paid to do the administrative work for MLG, Gom would shit it's pants.
|
Extended series don't work for SC2, there is to many random factors out of players control that can lead to losses. Cheese, Maps, Match Ups....all can play a role in losses. Extended series don't account for those random elements in this game.
Thus just get rid of extended series and call it a day if you can beat a guy 2-0 you should have no problem doing it again or winning 2-1 later if you're truly the better player.
|
|
|
The one who loses should not have a 1 game advantage if he was 1-2 the previous time. Its not fair to the player who beat him the first time. if you can win 2 sets in a roll than you truly are the better player and deserve the highest praise!
|
Extended series feels like double punishment to the guy who is supposed to have a second chance due to double elimination. As a viewer i can't stand watching a guy have to win possibly 4 games but only able to drop 1 while the other guy has the opportunity to try and coinflip his way to easy wins with cheeses and stuff.
I want each series to be treated completely independent, on their own merits, with both players on a level playing field. Extended series denies me as a viewer this opportunity, and thus kills the spectacle of it.
Of course i'm completely biased as a potential paying customer. I have no idea how the players feel, so if my $10 or whatever (pretend MLG costs money to watch, or that i can actually buy hot pockets in my country) is less important than player welfare (which it probably should be) then i'll go with what the players want.
I'm just some guy on the internet afterall.
|
I want to praise MLG for acutually trying to make their tournaments as fair and precise as possible. I know that they are!
You brainsoups who say stuff like "Extended Series and Starcraft should not be mentioned in the same sentance.", thank you very much.
However In this case I think MLG is making a misstake by using extended series as it actually does not make it more fair, nor more accurate.
It could seem so at a first glance but I will do my best to explain to you why that is not the case.
Using extended series makes it more likely that the player that actually holds the upper hand out of every single accidential player collision withing the lower bracket will advance and its easy to think that that's the main point of a bracket system.
The main objective for a bracket is to as accuratly as possible determine who is the true theoretical champion in a playerpool (the best player.). The best player is whoever is a underdog to the least ammount of other players within the pool. Almost never is there going to be a player that holds a advantage in every possible player collision within a bracket.
A field is going to have cycles like: A is a favorite over B who's a favorite over C who's a favorite over A.
A > B > C > A...
Sometimes extending a series if 2 players happens to have played eachother earlier in the tournament will sometimes skew the bracket and it will make it so that on average more runthroughs of the tournament is needed before the players true skill level can be read.
It actually does not matter once in lower bracket if the couple of players that are colliding have collided earlier in the winner bracket and I will explain this to you now.
Immagine a bracket thats filled with precentages instead of player names. When a bracket starts out everyone is given equal chances. So lets imagine a 64 player bracket filled with precentages instead of playernames. In the first round every player in the bracket has a 1.5625% chance of beeing the true champion of the playerpool.
Now imagine as players start playing, these precentages will climb down the bracket.
Now lets pick a point in the bracket!
Lets follow player A!
Player A wins two rounds in the Winnersbracket and his precentage of beeing the champion has started climbing. His precentages will always climb with the same ammount in every tournament runthrough because his opponents will always have started with the same precentage and have had the same round throughout the tournament.
Now imagine player A was beaten down to the Losersbracket from his opponent in Winners round 3.
Player A now finds himself in the Losersbracket with a precentage of X.
X will at this point always be the same number every time a player advances to this possition in the tournamen and every player that lost in Winners round 3 will find themselfs in Losers with exactly the same precentages.
Their opponents in Losers will always have a very consistant precentage also, this can vary by a extremly astronomically small irrelevant ammount so I am going to discount that small variation because it is not relevant for the point im trying to prove. The irrelevant variation in the Losers bracket is going to be something like ~0.001%, and it is capped so it can never be relevant.
Now see the brackets in front of you and realize why would it matter if on accident there was the same player behind one of those precentages playing eachother twice, or two different players? Realize that their precentages is always going to be the same and so their chances of advancing in the Losersbracket should not sometimes be drastically decreased because they accidentially got paired earlier in Winnersbracket. If you do this you will skew the precentages and make the bracket more inaccurate and unfair.
The winner of the bracket would always end up with a smaller precentage as the champion and that means that the bracket would require more runthroughs to determine a champion with any certainty.
Thanks, I hope this helps and if you want to question or have something clarified about this then ill be happy to further and more detailed explain in a private message.
EDIT:
Also about the argument that Tyler brought up on SotG.
He had this argument that it would be more fair with extended series because of the chances of first beating a player 2-0 in the Winnersbracket and then Losing 1-2 later in Losersbracket and be eliminated with a total score of leading 3-2 against the player that eliminated you.
The downfall of this argument is this:
He is basically arguing that any player that you hold the upper hand against in a individual collision within the bracket can never be the champion.
I think a better way to look at a situation where two players who played round 1 Winnersbracket where player A beat B 2-0 would be to say that Player B lost WB round 1 to random player with 1.5625% chances of beeing the champion while player A did beat a random player with 1.5625% of beeing the champion that same round and it doesnt matter if theyactually played eachother or other players with those precentages.
|
On December 02 2010 18:07 SlapMySalami wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 16:42 enzym wrote:
It's a good rule. There should be a significant drawback to being pushed into the loser's bracket. So what happens when the guy that beat you gets knocked into the loser bracket and faces you again? What is his significant drawback? Starting 2-0 against someone he already beat?
Of course. He already won once. Why wouldn't that count for much of note? I think it's a very good and sensible rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
