|
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.
you made me vote yes get your own IP >_<
i think this becomes an issue of "where does it stop". what if they played each other in another city during MLG's tour and Player B won 2-0? What if player A is 15-0 against player B on the ladder?
this might be a case of TOO fair. I think each match should be isolated occurrences where history doesn't matter.
|
|
|
On December 01 2010 16:45 StarPolice wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 16:40 Alethios wrote: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? 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.
Choose a slightly different set of criteria, and what is 'fair' changes. Fairness is not objective, cannot be objective.
In any case, the point remains, what does this rule add to the tournament? In order to justify itself, it would have to be shown to add more than it takes away from the traditional finals series.
|
The most they should do is give a winner a 1-0 lead. Those 2-0 in bo5 and bo7 is just disgusting.
|
The extended series system is fairer to players and much more fun to watch as a spectator.
Win-win.
It ensures the best player wins. You guys seriously want a player to WIN a tournament after getting BEAT 3-2 by the guy in second place? Imagine: If the series were best-of-seven, this would balloon to 7-4.
MLG cares about the integrity of its tournaments. This is rare, and points to why they have been so successful.
|
On December 01 2010 15:14 Phraxas wrote:
The extended series is bollocks.
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?"
According to this logic winner of the first series (player W) is almost always going to win in the second series 2 to 0 or 2 to 1, etc. Which means nothing changes.
If nothing's different then I'd rather keep the chance of up to 4 games more. In a tournament of this caliber it shouldn't hurt to be able to watch more games. And come backs are always exciting?
TBH it's spectators and not MLG players, who are giving most of the votes in this poll.
This means people voting "No" are voting for less games to watch. What a successful game SC2 is, there is so many good games to watch people are voting against watching even more O_o
It's MLG participants who should decide this, it shouldn't be decided by general public.
And I hope not to learn that majority of top players are whiners looking for excuses.
Or am I talking out of my ass and pressure during live events is that big even for experienced players?
|
On December 01 2010 16:57 beetlelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 15:14 Phraxas wrote:
The extended series is bollocks.
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?" According to this logic winner of the first series (player W) is almost always going to win in the second series 2 to 0 or 2 to 1, etc. Which means nothing changes. If nothing's different then I'd rather keep the chance of up to 4 games more. In a tournament of this caliber it shouldn't hurt to be able to watch more games. And come backs are always exciting? TBH it's spectators and not MLG players, who are giving most of the votes in this poll. This means people voting "No" are voting for less games to watch. What a successful game SC2 is, there is so many good games to watch people are voting against watching even more O_o It's MLG participants who should decide this, it shouldn't be decided by general public. And I hope not to learn that majority of top players are whiners looking for excuses. Or am I talking out of my ass and pressure during live events is that big even for experienced players?
The difference is you have to watch a crappy second series, because one of the players has to try and play while being punched in the crotch by a small child.
Who cares if you get to watch more games if the quality of those games isn't as good? And do we really get to see more games anyway?
Finally, your argument that it should be decided by the players is also flawed. The players do what they're told, because the alternative is not playing for the cash prize. The spectators are the ones with their hands untied and are able to say "No, this rule is bullshit, what does it add?".
|
On December 01 2010 16:40 Alethios wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The same way you can mathematically prove that bo5s are more fair than bo3s. Now obviously extended series isnt as big of an impact as that, but it is still an impact.
Now if you want to argue that it isn't that great for spectators then you may have a point, though I could argue that watching someone come back from someone they were losing to makes for some entertainment.
The main thing I would argue for though is in my opinion one of biggest things a tournament should be trying to accomplish is making sure the players are getting to the rank in the tournament that they deserve to be in and making it as unrandomized as possible and extended series adds to that.
Also on a side note I think people are blowing this out of proportion. The first reason being that I believe Lee was saying something about adding championship brackets so if you make it to the top 16 the extended series doesn't even apply anymore(can someone clarify this?). Also because its a rare case when this happens and when it does the winner is likely to win again either way.
|
I voted for "Undecided" but I think it needs a Tyler option where you can see valid arguments for either format and that there's not one that's clearly better than the other. Both of them have their strengths and weaknesses.
|
Been listening to SotG this morning and I still think the extended series is a great concept considering that someone should still be rewarded for being in the upper bracket.
And I think by time when more and more MLG tournaments are played, seeding will get better and good players will no longer be matched against each other early on and extended series will be less of an issue.
|
i kind of get the reason behind it, and i absolutly support it. i like the idea of playing one bo7 instead of 2 bo3's. so, yes i like the extendet series rule
|
On December 01 2010 17:14 Deyster wrote:
Been listening to SotG this morning and I still think the extended series is a great concept considering that someone should still be rewarded for being in the upper bracket.
And I think by time when more and more MLG tournaments are played, seeding will get better and good players will no longer be matched against each other early on and extended series will be less of an issue.
Agreed. But don't put it like "advantage" or the "WTF we don't like change" crowd will pounce all over that. It's an advantage, sure, but not the kind of advantage that gives an edge to any player in the grand-scheme of the tournament.
At the beginning of that extended series, it's still up to each respective player to prove that they can beat their opponent the majority of the time they do battle. One player just happened to win the first two games. Which is exactly what is should be. Fair.
|
On December 01 2010 17:06 ragingfungus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 16:40 Alethios wrote: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. The same way you can mathematically prove that bo5s are more fair than bo3s. Now obviously extended series isnt as big of an impact as that, but it is still an impact. Now if you want to argue that it isn't that great for spectators then you may have a point, though I could argue that watching someone come back from someone they were losing to makes for some entertainment. The main thing I would argue for though is in my opinion one of biggest things a tournament should be trying to accomplish is making sure the players are getting to the rank in the tournament that they deserve to be in and making it as unrandomized as possible and extended series adds to that.
You have a fair point there. Maths does account for something in that case, but it still misses the bigger picture because it always counts a series as a simply conglomeration of single games. My argument is that it isn't, not shall it ever be.
A best of five series contains mind games, tests mental strength, truly pits one player against another. An extended series pits one player against another that has a massive advantage right from the start, if you're two games down already, how can you possibly risk cheese or some unorthodox strategy to catch the opponent off guard when, if it fails you lose. Meanwhile, the previous winner knows that he can discount cheese for the most part, and can do whatever he wants right from the first round. This is no true test of skill. This does not ensure that players are getting the rank the deserve to be in. If they beat an opponent earlier, they should be able to do so once again in a 'more fair' Bo5.
Furthermore, this is just my opinion of course, but how can a comeback from an artificially created position of 2 games down possibly be as exciting as a comeback from losing the first two games of a Bo5, then the player rallying his resolve and determination and finishing the nail biting series 3-2.
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the extended series rule is more 'fair'. The fact remains that the purpose of a tournament is not to create some ranking system (thats what ladders are for). It is to crown a champion, who should not have their win cheapened by the simple fact that the person they played in the grand finals they were lucky enough to edge out earlier in the tournament and thus go into the finals with a massive advantage.
|
On December 01 2010 17:04 Alethios wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 16:57 beetlelisk wrote:On December 01 2010 15:14 Phraxas wrote:
The extended series is bollocks.
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?" According to this logic winner of the first series (player W) is almost always going to win in the second series 2 to 0 or 2 to 1, etc. Which means nothing changes. If nothing's different then I'd rather keep the chance of up to 4 games more. In a tournament of this caliber it shouldn't hurt to be able to watch more games. And come backs are always exciting? TBH it's spectators and not MLG players, who are giving most of the votes in this poll. This means people voting "No" are voting for less games to watch. What a successful game SC2 is, there is so many good games to watch people are voting against watching even more O_o It's MLG participants who should decide this, it shouldn't be decided by general public. And I hope not to learn that majority of top players are whiners looking for excuses. Or am I talking out of my ass and pressure during live events is that big even for experienced players? The difference is you have to watch a crappy second series, because one of the players has to try and play while being punched in the crotch by a small child. Who cares if you get to watch more games if the quality of those games isn't as good? And do we really get to see more games anyway? Finally, your argument that it should be decided by the players is also flawed. The players do what they're told, because the alternative is not playing for the cash prize. The spectators are the ones with their hands untied and are able to say "No, this rule is bullshit, what does it add?".
How can you tell MLG doesn't listen to feedback? Why would they keep something that hurts quality of games which means less spectators watching which means less revenue from sponsors?
Who can give better feedback than those that experience this first hand?
Are you sure each time you watched player L lose again in something like that it was because he was overpressured and not just worse?
I don't know if were far enough in the future to be able to say: strategies and scene is so developed that differences in players' skill are small enough for 1 or 2 game lead in a series to be huge and with no chance to overcome it, in every single case.
Even in BW, after 11 years, epic come backs happen?
|
It is much worse for spectators. It's hard to hype things up and get excited to watch when one player starts off behind the 8 ball.
|
On December 01 2010 17:22 Alethios wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 17:06 ragingfungus wrote:On December 01 2010 16:40 Alethios wrote: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. The same way you can mathematically prove that bo5s are more fair than bo3s. Now obviously extended series isnt as big of an impact as that, but it is still an impact. Now if you want to argue that it isn't that great for spectators then you may have a point, though I could argue that watching someone come back from someone they were losing to makes for some entertainment. The main thing I would argue for though is in my opinion one of biggest things a tournament should be trying to accomplish is making sure the players are getting to the rank in the tournament that they deserve to be in and making it as unrandomized as possible and extended series adds to that. You have a fair point there. Maths does account for something in that case, but it still misses the bigger picture because it always counts a series as a simply conglomeration of single games. My argument is that it isn't, not shall it ever be. A best of five series contains mind games, tests mental strength, truly pits one player against another. An extended series pits one player against another that has a massive advantage right from the start, if you're two games down already, how can you possibly risk cheese or some unorthodox strategy to catch the opponent off guard when, if it fails you lose. Meanwhile, the previous winner knows that he can discount cheese for the most part, and can do whatever he wants right from the first round. This is no true test of skill. This does not ensure that players are getting the rank the deserve to be in. If they beat an opponent earlier, they should be able to do so once again in a 'more fair' Bo5. Furthermore, this is just my opinion of course, but how can a comeback from an artificially created position of 2 games down possibly be as exciting as a comeback from losing the first two games of a Bo5, then the player rallying his resolve and determination and finishing the nail biting series 3-2. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the extended series rule is more 'fair'. The fact remains that the purpose of a tournament is not to create some ranking system (thats what ladders are for). It is to crown a champion, who should not have their win cheapened by the simple fact that the person they played in the grand finals they were lucky enough to edge out earlier in the tournament and thus go into the finals with a massive advantage.
I disagree with your statement that tournaments shouldn't try to rank players. I believe a tournament should do everything in its power to try to rank the better players higher than the worse ones. Why does everyone hate bo1s? Because it ranks players terribly. The less effort a tournament puts into trying to rank players the more it becomes a random lottery on who wins. Nobody wants to see a terrible player get 1st place. On a side note its also bad for the pro scene. The best should consistently be placing higher up. You can't make a career from it if random people are constantly knocking you out of tournaments because they have terrible systems.
|
Well, it's their rules, so I got no opinion on that. If they want to keep it, they'll do anyways. If they want to change it, they'll change it anyways :D
|
i voted undicided as i dont feel the rule is bad. It's nor very good either, and there's a lot of arguments you can call against it, but it's not terrible, and as it's already implemented in MLG i personally would not remove it. If it gets removed i wont be sad either
|
On December 01 2010 17:22 Alethios wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 17:06 ragingfungus wrote:On December 01 2010 16:40 Alethios wrote: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. The same way you can mathematically prove that bo5s are more fair than bo3s. Now obviously extended series isnt as big of an impact as that, but it is still an impact. Now if you want to argue that it isn't that great for spectators then you may have a point, though I could argue that watching someone come back from someone they were losing to makes for some entertainment. The main thing I would argue for though is in my opinion one of biggest things a tournament should be trying to accomplish is making sure the players are getting to the rank in the tournament that they deserve to be in and making it as unrandomized as possible and extended series adds to that. You have a fair point there. Maths does account for something in that case, but it still misses the bigger picture because it always counts a series as a simply conglomeration of single games. My argument is that it isn't, not shall it ever be. A best of five series contains mind games, tests mental strength, truly pits one player against another. An extended series pits one player against another that has a massive advantage right from the start, if you're two games down already, how can you possibly risk cheese or some unorthodox strategy to catch the opponent off guard when, if it fails you lose. Meanwhile, the previous winner knows that he can discount cheese for the most part, and can do whatever he wants right from the first round. This is no true test of skill. This does not ensure that players are getting the rank the deserve to be in. If they beat an opponent earlier, they should be able to do so once again in a 'more fair' Bo5. Furthermore, this is just my opinion of course, but how can a comeback from an artificially created position of 2 games down possibly be as exciting as a comeback from losing the first two games of a Bo5, then the player rallying his resolve and determination and finishing the nail biting series 3-2. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the extended series rule is more 'fair'. The fact remains that the purpose of a tournament is not to create some ranking system (thats what ladders are for). It is to crown a champion, who should not have their win cheapened by the simple fact that the person they played in the grand finals they were lucky enough to edge out earlier in the tournament and thus go into the finals with a massive advantage.
About part in bold - how can you tell that? Player L can as well think "he's going to feel confident thinking I'm not so..."
The truly only strategies they are going to feel confident in are those that won them games in previous encounter, the only strategies they truly fear are those they've lost to.
And between both encounters they can prepare against those they lost to, they don't go straight into the rest of series. In this way it can be even more fair than a Bo series without advantages because some strategies are player specific.
For example I don't know if there was any other game played during a big tournament like this with cloaked Banshees used against Colossus based Protoss army, like in Tyler vs PainUser on Xel'Naga.
This series has also the best example why winner should get something for winning - discarded game 1 because someone forgot LT wasn't supposed to be played first.
|
On December 01 2010 17:44 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
It is much worse for spectators. It's hard to hype things up and get excited to watch when one player starts off behind the 8 ball.
On the contrary, I got totally engrossed watching an epic best-of-8 (wat) over Tyler's shoulder (after the director woke up and took the giant MLG logo off the screen).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
