EPTDo you like MLG's extended series rule? - Page 4
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
|
Artisan
United States336 Posts
| ||
|
Barett
Canada454 Posts
Not hating on MLG its great. but the rules are really stupid. HOW IS IT ALMOST TIED WITH NO!!!????? | ||
|
Gooey
United States944 Posts
So, say you win the first bo3 2-1 playing on 3 different maps (maps matter quite a bit for composition and strategy, much like on sc2). The winning team is now 1-0 against their opponent. Now their opponent comes into the semis to face them again and 2-0s the previous winner with a new composition and one of the maps is different. Now, they are technically tied 1-1, since the bo3 is considered as 1 point, rather than individual rounds within the match point (like in tennis). Now the two teams play yet another bo3 to decide who wins the overall series (which turns out, is a bo3 in itself). This is how I thought the extended series was intended to work anyways, and at least I think that is how it works in WoW (this is the system blizzcon used I believe). You beat a guy 2-0 in round 1 and then after winning two more winners bracket rounds, you finally lose in round 4 in a close 2-1 and get knocked down to losers bracket, only to find that you play the same guy you beat round 1 against. He ends up beating you 2-1 and you are eliminated. How would you feel if you went to a tournament and beat someone once, and then they beat you the next time, but they still knocked you out just because you didn't beat them in the right order? Otherwise, you aren't playing in an overall tournament, but rather just a bunch of individual best of 3 show matches at the same facility with no regards to an overall picture. This is what makes a double elimination tournament justified. | ||
|
xuanzue
Colombia1747 Posts
| ||
|
ejac
United States1195 Posts
| ||
|
o3.power91
Bahrain5288 Posts
I feel it takes away from the suspense rather than add to it, but that's just me  It was worse in the Tekken 6 MLG Grand Finals where they play first to 6 sets (Bo11 with Bo5 rounds). The winner of the losers bracket lost to the winner's bracket winner 3-0 in a first to 3 (Bo5 with Bo5 rounds). So basically, winner had to just win 3 Bo5s and loser had to win 6 Bo5s. Score ended at 6-3 iirc in favor of the winner's bracket champ. I just think it takes too much away from the loser brackets winner  | ||
|
Fiercegore
United States294 Posts
At least the way I see it, person A can beat person B 2-0 in the first round. And then player A keeps beating people in the winners and person B can beat people in the losers bracket. But finally person A loses in the winners bracket 0-2. Taking a totally random number, say he was in round 8 before he lost, that means his record in the tournament is 14-2. Now person B keeps winning and he's made it to round 8 and he's also 14-2. Now if they have to play each other I don't think that person B should be punished. If person B wins 2-0 that means his record is 16-2 in the tournament and person A is 14-4. I know their personal matches are tied 2-2 but person A got eliminated because of those 4 losses. At least that's the way I see it, but some of the things MLG lee said (I think it was him) made a lot of sense. | ||
|
Thetan
240 Posts
One thing to keep in mind about MLG, is that every match from the beginning to end is a BO3. So, we can think about player vs. player history not as # of matches won, but rather BO3 series won. In the loser's bracket, if two players meet up again, there's a chance that the winner the first time will lose the second time. That puts the players at a 1-1 tie for BO3 matches won. The fairest way to break this tie is by making the players play more games. Extended Series is a good way of achieving this goal. Not only does it achieve this goal, but it does so in a way that handles all possibilities in a similar fashion while limiting the max number of games played(making it easier to explain the rules/manage/schedule the tournament). Why Extended Series is a good way of achieving this goal: + Show Spoiler + *Any player that wins both BO3's (first to 2 wins) will also win the extended series' BO7 (first to 4 wins)* If a player wins the first BO3 but loses the second BO3, the players are tied 1-1 in BO3 series won. What extended series does, in essence, is let the players play more games in order to break this tie). Possible outcomes of a 1-1 tie for BO3 matches won 2-0 first BO3 0-2 second BO3 2-2 overall Playing Extended Series (first to 4 wins) would in essence break the 1-1 BO3 tie by giving: a third BO3 to determine winner 2-1 first BO3 1-2 second BO3 3-3 overall Playing extended Series would break the 1-1 BO3 tie by giving : 1 game sudden death 2-0/0-2 first BO3 1-2/2-1 second BO3 3-2/2-3 overall Playing extended Series would break the 1-1 BO3 tie by giving: 1 additional set win needed for leader, 2 for the player that is behind -The player who has the most overall wins always advances. -All these seem like acceptable scenarios for breaking a 1-1 BO3 tie to determine who advances. -The extended series rule covers all of these possibilities by itself -Caps the # of games played to make the tournament easier to schedule. You can think of an Extended Series not as giving an advantage to one player over another, but *only* as a method to fairly break ties if the players split the 2 bo3's that they play. I therefore cannot say the use of Extended Series in the loser's bracket is "unfair". ----------------------------------- The Finals. Let's say that you're now in the finals and the two player meet up again, but you also want their first bo3 to matter in the final results. It seems fair (and logical) to play 2 more bo3's and treat their matches as a "bo3-bo3" (first player who wins 2 bo3's). In this case, the player who lost the first bo3 earlier on in the tournament has to win 2 bo3's in the finals, whereas the earlier winner only has to win 1 bo3 in the finals. But notice that the format above is THE SAME as a straight up double elimination tournament. In a double-elimination tournament, the player coming from the loser's has to win 2 bo3's, while the player from the winner's has to win 1 bo3. Note that the winner of a bo3-bo3 will always have either more total wins or an equal amount of wins in the series than his opponent. + Show Spoiler + 0-2 first BO3 2-1 second BO3 2-1 third BO3 This outcome maximizes the # of wins by the loser of the three BO3's and minimizes the wins by the winner. 4-4 overall W-L, tie goes to the player who has won the most BO3's. Any other combination of wins and loss, and the winning player will have more wins than losses. But what MLG does with extended series finals is that they throw double elimination out the window, and the winner of that one bo7 is the winner of the tournament. The usefulness of the extended series comes when there is a bo3 series tie that needs to be broken. In the loser's bracket, such a system is needed under double elimination. But in the finals, such ties never need to be broken in such a way. There is no reason to implement it. Whoever wins the final under normal double elimination rules will not have lost to his opponent more times than he has beaten him *under any circumstance*. Standard Double Elimination Finals are fair no matter how you look at them - there is no need for the implementation of an extended series during the finals. Conclusion: As an addition to a double elimination tournament, the extended series seems to be fair when implemented in the loser's bracket, but is completely unnecessary when implemented in the finals of the tournament. | ||
|
gm.tOSS
Germany898 Posts
| ||
|
ptz
Romania251 Posts
But this makes no sense considering the double elimination bracket main idea. The main idea is that you lose twice you are out. Not once, like single elim when bracket luck is heavily involved ,you have a second chance in the loser bracket. Now, the player that loses the first game in the WB is already punished, he has to go to the LB and play more games than the one staying in the WB. When eventually the early winner loses in WB and goes to LB, he has one loss exactly as the initial loser. If they do meet again it should be on even terms, as in a normal bo3, since the LB player earned his place there by winning more games in the LB while the initial winner had less games to play till eventually losing. Making it even harder for the LB player for the sake of equality between the 2 initial players is dumb. Even if the score between them is equal and the initial loser advances its not unfair. The initial winner is out because he has been DOUBLE eliminated, and the initial loser hasnt. | ||
|
zerat00l
United States100 Posts
We are not halo. deal with it. | ||
|
Fraidnot
United States824 Posts
| ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
|
notrangerjoe
110 Posts
| ||
|
Sok4R
Germany124 Posts
| ||
|
miseiler
United States1389 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
I think it's bad for players and bad for viewers (who wants to see a bo7 starting at 2-0 really), bad for organizers (delay vs your other matches in that round). | ||
|
Goshawk.
United Kingdom5338 Posts
| ||
|
SoftSoap
United States170 Posts
On December 01 2010 14:28 ffz wrote: It worked in halo! EL OH EL and MLG is best tourney in NA so they must be right! Bad excuse... Reputation means nothing, George Bush was president doesnt mean what he does is right? | ||
|
keeblur
United States826 Posts
You don't see any sports where you are given an unfair advantage later in the season for beating someone in a game if you match up against them again, so why SC2? Like Incontrol said. He already beat you arm wrestling, so why next time you meet to arm wrestle should you also have a small child hitting you in the balls. | ||
| ||
