|
United States22883 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?
I agree with this sentiment completely.
One thing I want to remind people about is the 2008 Shinhan Proleague where people kept complaining about Jaedong and Effort carrying Oz/CJ and winning series, despite losing more games. People need to start thinking of games differently.
In the context of a series, a game = a point, a bo3/5/7 = a set, and anything further could be considered a match. In the case of that Proleague, individual games were points, each day was a set and the total of those were a match. Therefore Oz could win a match, despite having less total points in the combined sets (which is EXACTLY how sports work.)
That is what MLG is missing. Extended series is just some weird set/match hybrid that's arbitrarily used in certain circumstances. It wouldn't be all that different from combining the rounds of multiple CS games, which is obviously a terrible idea.
|
Voting yes because Tyler gave a very good argument for it on SOTG a while back, even if the "it's more accurate" rationale is flawed.
That said I don't think it's a good idea to implement.
|
The way I see this argument it's incredibly simple. In a strategy game, like Starcraft 2, the superior player should win a best of 3 series. I think Starcraft has settled enough that we can argue that at this point. But that DOES NOT mean that the victor of that best-of-3 series should get ANY advantage when he potentially faces the same player later in the tournament. In Starcraft 2, two players enter and one player leaves based on who can play the game better. That's it. There are billions more variables in Halo that derive from it being a first-person shooter based on raw reflexes and hand-eye coordination. It's more unstable. You can't pinpoint exactly why a Halo player beat another Halo player, so it makes vastly more sense to give a victorious player an advantage against the same player if he faces him again because ANYTHING can happen. But such a rule DOES NOT belong in the tournament of a strategy game. I mean, it quite literally undermines and discredits the whole notion of "balance" in Starcraft 2.
|
Here is a way that I look at it:
Let's say the loser of the first BO3 comes back and wins the extended series in the losers' bracket. If it is technically a BO7, then hasn't he actually won each series that he has played in? If so, then why is he still in the losers' bracket?
|
I really hate this rule, it honestly makes no sense to me. It's like continuing the match from before instead of playing in a new one.
|
too many variables in starcraft most notably the maps to have this rule. I don't think its a dramatic injustice many others seem to think it is but I feel i'd be best not to have it for SC.
|
On December 02 2010 06:31 NotTheMonker wrote:
Here is a way that I look at it:
Let's say the loser of the first BO3 comes back and wins the extended series in the losers' bracket. If it is technically a BO7, then hasn't he actually won each series that he has played in? If so, then why is he still in the losers' bracket?
this is actually pretty funny lol. get bumped back to winners bracket after you infact win your series vs 'X' player.
=p
|
On December 02 2010 06:31 NotTheMonker wrote:
Here is a way that I look at it:
Let's say the loser of the first BO3 comes back and wins the extended series in the losers' bracket. If it is technically a BO7, then hasn't he actually won each series that he has played in? If so, then why is he still in the losers' bracket?
Wow... that makes way too much sense... when put like that I don't see how anyone could argue it makes sense
|
|
|
On December 02 2010 06:31 NotTheMonker wrote:
Here is a way that I look at it:
Let's say the loser of the first BO3 comes back and wins the extended series in the losers' bracket. If it is technically a BO7, then hasn't he actually won each series that he has played in? If so, then why is he still in the losers' bracket?
Wow, this is the best argument I have heard against it yet. Very good point.
|
It's a terrible rule. You are punished enough by having to play more matches overall if you fall to the losers bracket. More games = more chances to possibly be eliminated. For example, Idra only had to play 7 sets, Select had to play 11 sets (not to mention an extended series against nony). Also, if you beat that person once, why do you need an advantage to beat them again? If you are truly better then you should have no trouble beating them again in a straight Bo3.
|
When player W and L meet again in the losers bracket they have both lost a series at that point. They are on a completely even footing, because they lost an equal amount of series so far in the tournament. Even though W beat L earlier in the winners bracket W also lost to someone else in a later winner bracket round. The fact that L lost to W shouldn't matter because that was a previous series in the winners bracket. The extended series rule just make it so that L has a pentalty for losing to W earlier, but W doesnt have a penalty for losing to a different player. Its like Federer going to play Nadal and having to start down 2 sets. Who wants to watch someone play with a handicap? Its not fun for the viewers or the person playing with the penalty.
|
Extended series is complete bullshit. Handicapping someone because they lost earlier in the tournament is entirely stupid.
No, if you play someone a second time in the same tournament it's not the same fucking series. It's you playing them a goddamn second time.
Look up the history of double elimination if you want. The entire point is you have AN EXTRA CHANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT.
The extended series bullshit basically makes it so you if you had your one loss in the tournament already, you get a further disadvantage for losing, instead of your legitimate SECOND CHANCE in -> double elimination.
If they keep the extended series rule, they absolutely cannot call their tournaments "double elimination." Because you aren't given two chances, you're given one chance, and then you're given a disadvantage in any further series you happen to play versus someone you previously played.
People arguing you playing the same person is just the "same series" don't know the definition of double elimination tournament. It's just them trying to enforce their grandioise idea onto a double elimination format.
Yes, best out of 5 and best ouf of 7 proves the better player, and that is fine. If that were the case, then make the entire tournament format best out of 5s...but obviously that takes too much time, and is why it's best ouf of 3.
You can't run a double elim and then try to turn it into a "extended series tournament."
sighs.
|
I think anything that takes games away from the spectators should be discarded. Having a finals where it could possibly only have 2 games? That's just disappointing. Everyone should want to see the most possible games played.
Also the rule straight up doesn't make sense coming from watching BW for god...4 or 5 years now?
MLG needs to scrape this stupid idea, every meeting in a tournament is an isolated event. Simple as that.
|
I've been a part of MLG for a long time and as I see it one of the main points of the extended series is to make sure that the winning player has a positive record head-to-head versus every opponent that player has faced. I would also like to note that having extended scoring may seem illogical but is not unprecedented. It reminds me of aggregate scoring in professional soccer.
Neither way is necessarily right or wrong because both systems are fair as long as they are well-defined and set up in advance of the tournament. The right thing for MLG to do though IMO is to listen to the players and the fans instead of cavalierly making some decision based on what they have done at some other time/place.
|
Just different ways to view the tournament structure. I don't think either is more valid than the other, they just choose to address different issues. I have no issue with either and the amount of ink spilled on this topic already is kind of shocking.
People merely oppose change... people aren't used to it so feel it is so outrageous rule change that is an offensive suggestion. People just need to take it from Nony, not necessarily agree with his stance, but they need to chill.
|
I voted no, just because I imagine that this would affect the fatigue of players making later games possibly worse. Bo7s should be left for finals imo.
|
Calgary25998 Posts
On December 02 2010 07:43 StockTheFridge wrote:
I've been a part of MLG for a long time and as I see it one of the main points of the extended series is to make sure that the winning player has a positive record head-to-head versus every opponent that player has faced.
I lose to player W. He loses his next two matches and is eliminated from the tournament. I crush the loser's bracket and the finals to win the tournament.
I am the champion, but still have a losing record vs W.
|
as a player id rather play 2 bo3's rather than playing in an extended series(if for example i reach the finals), i know with an extended series i have the possibility of winning fewer games but theres less of a margin for error, the best case scenario would be if i loss 1-2 to my opponent in a previous round and had to win 3 games while he had to win 2 games in the finals, in an extended series u mentally feel so behind if u end up losing the 1st game while in a bo3 even if my opponent would have went 1-2 1-2 hed still still have 2 wins but he would end up losing the series.. basically theres more breathing room for the losing player
edit: also another important point is that in an extended series u cant play on any of the maps u previously played on.. which in the case of the MLG mappool leaves u in a pretty thought spot : D
|
I dislike the rule.
I really like the fact they are running double elimination tournament, but I think they should operate it the way normal double elimination works. I don't think the possible statistical accuracy benefits of the extended series rule outweigh the fact that less rules is better than more rules. I'd prefer the rules simple and obvious, not something that can cause as much as controversy as this one has.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
