EPTI also hate that the MLG guys just dig their heels in on this to the point where everyone is so sick of arguing about it that we're just going to shut up and accept it. Any time it gets brought up now JP or someone moans about how many shitty forum posts are going to come now. Well, I've got bad news for everyone. The forum posts may die down, but every MLG event for the foreseeable future is going to have 3-4 players who went deep in the tournament get snuffed out because of this crap.
Do you like MLG's extended series rule? - Page 5
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
|
numberThirtyOne
United States294 Posts
I also hate that the MLG guys just dig their heels in on this to the point where everyone is so sick of arguing about it that we're just going to shut up and accept it. Any time it gets brought up now JP or someone moans about how many shitty forum posts are going to come now. Well, I've got bad news for everyone. The forum posts may die down, but every MLG event for the foreseeable future is going to have 3-4 players who went deep in the tournament get snuffed out because of this crap. | ||
|
Gamjadori
Japan131 Posts
| ||
|
CCow
Germany335 Posts
I can't see any advantage comparing it with a "normal" double-elim bracket. If you win against some guy and face him again lateron you have fcked up somewhere in your winnersbracket, while he fought all the way through the losersbracket tro face you again. So i don't see why he should be any worse off than you. | ||
|
Endorsed
Netherlands1221 Posts
| ||
|
MarioMD
United States22 Posts
| ||
|
Uncultured
United States1340 Posts
| ||
|
Gojira621
United States374 Posts
I just don't think a matchup in SC2 needs to be balanced in someone's favor before the match even starts, especially considering a game that prides itself on having great RTS balance. | ||
Flicky
England2669 Posts
If we compare this to the Proleague Playoffs in 09 where the two series weren't linked by result, but rather marked as Win or Loss.. In one example. the series between STX and CJ ended 7-7 overall by games, but STX lost due to the ruling that the first series STX won and the second series CJ won. CJ then won the "super ace" and took the match series despite the even scoreline. If the series were connected, like I think they should through aggregate scoring - something that Football (soccer) has utilised for many years - then it would not be even and a real winner could've been decided. A player can go 3-2 against someone in two Best of Threes but lose if they got 2-0 then 1-2. It doesn't seem right to me, regardless of arguements that it should be two seperate events, that that player should be knocked out, despite having the better record. A lot of arguements I've heard are claiming that if a player that's deemed worse that another is behind, it's very hard for them to upset. Personally, I think that this isn't a bad thing as it just helps the better players in a game where the best still have 2:1 win ratios but that's my opinion. If a player wins 2-0 in dominating fashion, but loses the next games 1-2 to cheese, then who is the better player stilll? I'm of the opinion that if you won earlier on, you should get the advantage, you earned it and you should keep it. My only issue is, is that starting 0-2 and winning is very difficult, regardless of who you are and who you're playing. Sure it's a great event if a player pulls it off, but it can be a huge disadvantage that goes against the better players that the system is in place to defend. I do not that thing that this is bad enough to warrant removing the idea. However, I think you should get a good opinion from the players, then the fans. If you look at GOM's idea to remove Vetoing (which was entirely the corporations idea), you get an idea of what goes wrong if the "wrong people" decide the rules. | ||
|
Thunderflesh
United States382 Posts
Much simpler to have EVERY match-up be a Bo3, with the finals being (potentially) two Bo3's back to back. | ||
Chill
Calgary25990 Posts
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. Your point is irreverent because to meet again they would both have to be in the loser's bracket. The advantage someone gets for staying in the winner's bracket longer is to have to play less games. Finally, if they do indeed meet in the finals (the only situation where it would be a player in the winner's bracket vs a player in the loser's bracket), standard double elimination rules already favour the winner bracket player by starting him with a 1-0 series lead. This rule has no purpose. In game 7 of the NHL finals, do the teams start 0-0 or 17-12? | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25990 Posts
On December 01 2010 23:25 keeblur wrote: You play a best of series, and you win, that series is over. If you run into them again, that's a whole new series, because the previous series is already over. They should stop calling it BO3, and instead should call it "BO3 or 7 if they happen to run into the same person again". This is also exactly how I see it. If you want to reference past events, why not reference past MLGs too? Nony beat JoeyJohn 2-0 in Dallas and 2-0 in DC, why not start him in a Bo11 up 4-0? The past series is an old series. I feel like some of the people for extended series don't fully understand how a double elimination bracket works. | ||
|
Thetan
240 Posts
On December 02 2010 01:21 Thunderflesh wrote: No; it just makes things more complicated than they have to be. Much simpler to have EVERY match-up be a Bo3, with the finals being (potentially) two Bo3's back to back. The problem with double elimination, is that if two players that have met before meet in the Loser's bracket, there can be the case where the players are TIED 1-1 in bo3 series won against each other. You cannot convincingly argue that one player should advance over the other. The fairest method to solve this problem is to play more games. This is exactly what the extended series rule accomplishes. If you were going to win both bo3's, you will also win the extended series. The extended series only factors into scenarios where players would have been TIED 1-1 in bo3 series won. What the extended series does is, in a very fair way, add on tie-breaking games to determine the winner. I explain this idea more in my previous post on this thread or my attempt at making my own thread on the subject that got closed. The only difference between an extended series loser bracket and a normal double elim losers bracket is that the extended series allows for tie-breaking games in the event two players are tied 1-1 in bo3 series won. However, extended series is a BAD idea for the FINALS of a tournament, as it offers no benefit over a normal double-elimination tournament final. Again, more details in my other posts. | ||
|
Flicky
England2669 Posts
On December 02 2010 01:28 Chill wrote: This rule has no purpose. In game 7 of the NHL finals, do the teams start 0-0 or 17-12? The difference here is that there is a limit on score in SC2, there isn't in NHL. A player can only have a +2 lead maximum in The MLG SC2 Circuit. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25990 Posts
On December 02 2010 01:34 Thetan wrote: The problem with double elimination, is that if two players that have met before meet in the Loser's bracket, there can be the case where the players are TIED 1-1 in bo3 series won against each other. You cannot convincingly argue that one player should advance over the other. Sure I can. I have 1 loss in the tournament; he has 2. Seems overwhelmingly convincing to me. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25990 Posts
On December 02 2010 01:36 Flicky wrote: The difference here is that there is a limit on score in SC2, there isn't in NHL. A player can only have a +2 lead maximum in The MLG SC2 Circuit. I think you can understand the analogy... | ||
|
JackedRabbit
Canada5 Posts
no he should get the gold because he won when it matters and while that isn't completely fair. player B wins MLG and says "i one fair and square" and player C says "no you only won when it matters, i beat you in ladder all the time". player C maybe the Best Player Ever! but it isn't to find out who's the best, and if it is, we need a new system | ||
|
Areon
United States273 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On December 02 2010 01:36 Flicky wrote: The difference here is that there is a limit on score in SC2, there isn't in NHL. A player can only have a +2 lead maximum in The MLG SC2 Circuit. The more reason why it is bad. 2-1 or 2-0 is huge whereas 7-6 has a lot less influence. The lower the scores for a game the worse this rule is, because the lower the scores the more influence it has to bring them back. | ||
|
FaCE_1
Canada6182 Posts
Every series have a winner and a loser, after that series, you move on. If both player face each other again, you start a new series. | ||
|
Patriot.dlk
Sweden5462 Posts
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 you must vote to see the percentage | ||
| ||
