| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
|
R0YAL
United States1768 Posts
Player A vs. Player B Player A wins 2-0 and sends Player B to the losers bracket. Later they face each other again and Player B ends up winning 2-1 knocking Player A out of the tournament. The official score between the two is 3-2 in favor of Player A but Player B advances because he won "the one that counts." I think it's more unfair without the extended series rule tbh. | ||
|
TheKanAry
United States149 Posts
If the 'better' player loses in a best of whatever, it is because, A: He messed up B:He wasn't in fact the 'better' player C:The other player won in a cheap fashion, due to the map, racial balance etc. (do note all these assume one player is obviously better than the other) That being said i would like to state that it is in fact the Game, NOT the tourney that is meant to determine the better player. | ||
|
Phraxas
Australia7 Posts
InControl: "I will f*ing smash you in an arm wrestle. Does that mean that the next time we play I need a small child punching you in the crotch whilst we have a rematch?" | ||
|
TaKemE
Denmark1045 Posts
On December 01 2010 15:09 R0YAL wrote: I voted yes and heres why from the perspective of if this rule was non-existent. Player A vs. Player B Player A wins 2-0 and sends Player B to the losers bracket. Later they face each other again and Player B ends up winning 2-1 knocking Player A out of the tournament. The official score between the two is 3-2 in favor of Player A but Player B advances because he won "the one that counts." I think it's more unfair without the extended series rule tbh. Thats true and thats how it should be, your forgetting that player B also lost to another guy in winner bracket that player A dident lose to. When useing the extended series Player A would have to lose 3 bo3 to be out of the tournament if he gets lucky and he plays a guy he already played before (B) in loser bracket, while others are out if they lose 2 and how is that fair? Its like the game Player A lost in winner bracket dosent matter anymore when he faces one he already played. | ||
|
Noxide
United States2870 Posts
| ||
|
BobbyPG
United States35 Posts
| ||
|
Al Bundy
7257 Posts
| ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
a) losing two different series or b) losing both legs of an extended series (similar to a) or c) losing the first leg of an extended series then not winning the second leg by enough Losing one series, regular or extended, shouldn't bump you from a double elimination. A hypothetical example being A>B WW C>A WW B>C WW B>A WLWWL If we view each as a series, then we have the records A 1-2 B 2-1 C 1-1 By double elimination rules, A should be eliminated as he is the only player to lose twice. However B, the only player with a record above .500, is eliminated. (obviously in order for this to occur the players would have to play other people in between, and it's only possible for some kinds of bracket configurations. Hence, hypothetical example) But even if we view it as three extended series, then you have A>B 4-3 B>C 2-0 C>A 2-0 Which again, somehow eliminates B, despite the fact that his loss was the closest. As a side note, look at the 1960 World Series as an analogy. Pittsburgh won 4 games while New York won 3. If you tally the entire series as one game though, New York won 55-27. Which team do you feel should be champion? | ||
|
dekuschrub
United States2069 Posts
 additionally I dont think it is fair. Just because you fucked up a series where elimination is not possible doesnt mean you should have a disadvantage when elimination is possible. tournaments should value winning later clutch matches rather than give innate advantages to the guy who was in winners bracket longer | ||
|
Hoju
United States449 Posts
It's not like extended series has been tested in previous starcraft tournaments (as far as I know), so it's not something that's been done before and proven to be bad. If we dismissed every idea because "that's not how we do things" nothing would ever change and no progress would be made. So, please feel free to argue the merits of each concept, but at least be open to concepts like extended series that are new to starcraft. | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
| ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
| ||
|
suicideMARE
Canada160 Posts
| ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
With this rule, the vaunted Bo3/Bo5 dynamics are fundamentally changed. The mental challenge of winning a Bo5, and the viewing pleasure of watching mind games in action is undeniably cheapened when one player heads into the series with such a huge advantage (Both the knowledge that he's won before, and being at least a game ahead of his opponent). For this reason alone, the rule should not stand. | ||
|
ComusLoM
Norway3547 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
MLG should dodge the issue entirely and switch to single elimination with Bo5/Bo7 for the later rounds. | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9105 Posts
| ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
On December 01 2010 16:31 jalstar wrote: It's actually more "fair" than not having it (which can and has been proved mathematically in previous threads) but it would be better to use it in a longer tournament, since it causes more games. MLG should dodge the issue entirely and switch to single elimination with Bo5/Bo7 for the later rounds. How can 'fairness' possibly be proved mathematically? One can easily say that the losing player has earned the right to play against the winner, by fighting their way through the loser's bracket. To have to play on an uneven footing could be considered unfair; why does the winner need an advantage in any case? What the entire argument should come down to, because the rest is all simply perspective, is: What does the rule add to the tournament? I've yet to hear any arguments on this level for the rule, and i've clearly outlined how the rule is detrimental both for the spectators, and the sanctity of the Bo5 series, which has a long and colourful history. Everybody who's watched a Bo5 between two great players knows that it isn't simply a collection of single games, it is so much more. The extended series rule cheapens this great institution immeasurably. Scrap it, it doesn't add anything. | ||
|
StarPolice
United States327 Posts
On December 01 2010 16:40 Alethios wrote: How can 'fairness' possibly be proved mathematically? By assuming both players are of equal skill and both have a 50% chance of winning each match and seeing how their odds change after each match. | ||
|
Mr_Kzimir
France268 Posts
Instead of going for a survival BO7, why not simply extend the BO3 to a BO5. Cause in all fairness the 1st match looser , already got punished by being thrown in the losers bracket. The only person who should deserve this advantage is the guy who didn't lose the whole tournament , everyone else is given a chance to stay alive , thus they should not deserve a higher chance of staying alive when they are all dead and even more when you take in count the fact that if they do a rematch they likely gonna have the same lose/win ratio. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Big Brain Bouts
Elazer vs Nicoract
Reynor vs Scarlett
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Krystianer vs TBD
TriGGeR vs SKillous
Percival vs TBD
ByuN vs Nicoract
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
|
|
|
EPT
