EPTIn addition, it gives the WINNER of the match an unfair advantage over other players in the winners bracket. Why should (s)he have to win less games just because the brackets happen to line up in a way that requires a rematch?
Do you like MLG's extended series rule? - Page 8
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
|
fUddO
Canada197 Posts
In addition, it gives the WINNER of the match an unfair advantage over other players in the winners bracket. Why should (s)he have to win less games just because the brackets happen to line up in a way that requires a rematch? | ||
|
TofuFox
374 Posts
1. The two best of 3s can be considered as one series instead of two; 2. Head to head matches between 2 individual players is a perfect measurement of which player is more skilled. These are not even remotely true as applied to Starcraft, particularly in reference to extended series in the loser's bracket. (1) Given the heavy strategy component involved in Starcraft, a break inbetween matches fundamentally alters the match. A player that loses to a strategy can adjust to it and not be as likely to lose to it again to a vastly greater degree given match breaks as opposed to simply game to game breaks. Thus you can't consider 2 Bo3s to be the same match. (2) There are 3 (9 for the rare random) matchups for a player in Starcraft; how good you are is a combination of *all* of them. Extended series can only account for one matchup. A tournament as a whole can account for all of them - and a non-extended series setup is better at this than one with extended series, as the latter will artifically increase the number of certain matchups for certain players, while a standard double elimination is closer to an even distribution. It also (as per Geoff) makes no sense to add an extra punishment since both players in a loser's bracket extended series have been punished for losing (by moving to the loser's bracket); one player should not be punished twice because of who he lost to. | ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
:O | ||
|
Aegeis
United States1619 Posts
I feel if they went with that the better player will win, even though they got cheesed last time they played. | ||
|
Inkblood
United States463 Posts
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, excellent point. Here’s my argument against extended series. So, we have Jane and Robert in the round of 64, the first round in the imaginary tournament, right? Jane beats Robert 2-0 and advances into the next round of the winners bracket. Her reward is that she advances to the next round of the winners bracket, and has a comfortable cushion in her next game, because if she loses, then guess what? She’s still in the tournament. Robert’s punishment is that he’s knocked down to the losers bracket, and has to claw his way through twice as many opponents to get to exactly the same place as Jane. Then in the round of 8 Jane losses 2-1 to an opponent who has almost exactly the same skill level as her, she gets knocked to the losers bracket where she faces Robert. Now, Robert although he lost 2-0 against Jane, he isn’t a terrible player. But since he lost to her earlier, if she wins against her opponents in the round of eight, then Robert only has to win two games, and can lose one comfortably. Whereas if he faces Jane, he has to win four games and can only loose one without being knocked out. He has to win one entire extra game and stays with the same criteria to lose. Thus, he would much rather face Jane’s opponent than Jane, because she only has to win one game for every one of Robert’s, and she’ll win against him. (Keep in mind that Jane and her opponent are of virtually even skill levels. This number of games in a big deal.) Robert can win three games, and Jane can win two and Jane wins in this series. Despite the fact that Robert had to claw his way through twice as many opponents as Jane. (At least I think this was how it was in MLG, by all means correct me if I’m wrong. My argument might not stand up as well if I’m mistaken.) And with a score like that, he would have advanced over the other bloke, had the super close cheese game between Jane and her opponent been different. So why is Robert punished, and Jane rewarded for this? When both Jane and Robert advanced to where they are, on their own merits. Especially when Robert went through many more opponents then Jane did, with no cushion. (Jane may have faced tougher opponents sooner, but then they were knocked to . . . where? The losers bracket, where now Robert, or someone like him, has to face them.) Also it relies on bracket luck. Depending on where you’re placed in the bracket you might need to win two games out of three. (Ability to lose one. Out of tournament if two.) Or four games out of five. (Ability to lose one. Out of tournament if two.) And I don’t know about you, but I don’t like luck. Furthermore, there is nothing as lame as an extended series from a spectators viewpoint (this post now enters the realm of personal opinion rather then hard fact, mixed with opinion.) Things aren’t usually half as tense, they just end up being like oh, that guy won. This is especially true if the finals are an extended series. Okay, so another hypothetical situation. I’m a busy man, juggling work, family, and fun. I don’t have time to tune in to all of MLG. But I certainly want to catch the finals. I tune in, and the finals start. William wins 2 games, Jim wins 3. William wins the finals. I just tuned in. What just happened? The other guy won more games, what gives? Sure you can explain to this person what happened, if he doesn’t know about the extended series. But it’s just plain anti-climactic. It’s just something about human nature. We saw one guy win three games in this series, which was the finals, but the guy that won two games wins? Does that mean the finals happened in the round of 64 and in the last games of the tournament? If I’m watching it via the stream, I might have to watch the whole thing, just to make sure I catch all the series. So that if the finals are an extended series then I’ll know what happened in the ‘earlier finals.’ I don’t like this logic from a spectator’s viewpoint. And from a viewer just tuning in for the first time with the finals, it’s just damn bewildering. Additionally, what exactly is the point of the brackets? It’s a string of bo3's where people play each other to see who advances to the next best of three. The extended series throws a wrench into this flow, bo3, bo3, bo3, extended bo7 and mildly confusing rules, bo3. It just feels wrong to me. What’s a wacko best of seven doing in the middle of all these bo3's? That’s the word that I attribute to extended series, so I’ll say it again. Anti-climactic. Sometimes known as the last thing you want your finals to be. Once again, just my opinion. But perhaps it should be given due consideration. One last thing, I really don’t like how Lee defended the extended series, Nony gave pretty good arguments for it in a past SotG, but Lee basically was like “We’re the best North American tournament, that’s the way we’re doing it, and we like it. Defended.” I just never heard a good argument from him. Hope this is a fair argument against extended series, because if it's in the next MLG I'm going to be very disappointed. TTFN. | ||
|
clickrush
Switzerland3257 Posts
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 just blew my mind... | ||
|
SlapMySalami
United States1060 Posts
Using the MLG Dallas brackets http://www.mlgpro.com/ci/brackets/procircuit/10/dallas/sc2/open/winners And assuming all BYE's are actual games played and won by said players (Jinro and HuK) ALSO keep in mind HuK was basically a random choice of a player as I think HuK is an OK guy and just took him as an example for this With a standard Double Elimination set Jinro has to win 9-0 to win MLG Taking HuK's loss in round 5 he would have to win 13-1 overall to actually win MLG. With a double elimination set isn't that already a big enough deficit to have to win THIRTEEN bo3's in order to win. Why would you even think to add any other rules that give him even more of a deficit? | ||
|
hellsan631
United States695 Posts
Most of the extended series arguments for "yes" are pretty much fluff. Most of the arguments for it are just explaining the rule set. There is no argument for it, and why its better. Its just an explanation of why its good. And, one of their points for keeping it, is actually against the idea. The championship bracket idea is a way for the rule to not be so harsh. By including this, they (mlg) is admitting that the rule itself shouldn't be so harsh on the players. I would accept it if instead of the Bo7 starting 0-2, or 1-2, perhaps it should start 0-1. I am still against it. | ||
|
wololo
Sweden10 Posts
Lets also keep in mind that for the Extended Series rule to even apply BOTH players will have LOST once and been bumped down to the Losers Bracket. So lets go through that, they both lost once, and they are both in the Losers Bracket, and one player gets an automatic 2-1(or 0) lead, for having been lucky enough to beat the "right" player earlier. (This one was for all the misguided people saying the one in the Winner Bracket should get an advantage. When the rule applies: both are in the Loser Bracket.) Another thing to consider is the Grand Final, it automatically starts out with a free bo3 win for the Winner Bracket finalist with no respect to whom he is playing. Therefor a Grand Final between two players that had already played each other earlier in the tournament would not punish the Loser Bracket finalist additionally for loosing earlier because the Extended Series rule does not apply in this case. So in this case the Extended Series rule is nullified, exempting the Loser Bracket finalist from the rule that has been punishing other Loser Bracket players through the tournament, that seem fair to you? If it does, i know of a great mental institution for you! Considering the just above paragraph, for MLG (they said in an interview that they want the tournament to have a memory of the players earlier statistics, and used it as an argument for the Extended Series rule, but all of the sudden in the Grand Finals they don't want the whole truth of the players earlier statistics - just the ones they want) to stay consistent they should make the Grand Final between two players that have met each other earlier in the tournament start with TWO bo3 wins for the Winner Bracket finalist, but that would just be outrageously unfair (although MLG is already in the business of unfairness, they probably would just promote it as "It makes the best player most likely to win!" which seems to be their only half solid argument). But in all fairness they probably realized this and therefor did not include it in the rules, but it should prove the Extended Series rule is Seriously Flawed. To be clear I'm not advising them to remove the normal penalty of one bo3 free win (as it is in all normal double elimination setups) for the Grand Finals, nor am i suggesting they make it two bo3 free wins in some cases. It is only natural that the losers are being set at a slight disadvantage for having a lost a game, but everyone should be set at the same disadvantage, no one should be punished more for being unlucky to hit just the "wrong" player. The double elimination format is great, i love it, it promotes the best players to make it to the finals, but the Extended Series rule is just too much and too random and therefor in my eyes takes away from the fairness of the double elimination format. To summarize all of the above: - Even without the Extended Series rule the player in the Loser Bracket are being set at a great disadvantage. - For the rule even to apply BOTH players need to have lost a game and been bumped down to the Loser Bracket. - Some people are being punished by the Extended Series rule whereas others aren't because they were lucky enough to hit their previously victorious opponent just in time (the Grand Finals). EDIT: I have not read all of the previous comments, sorry if anything I've written already has been mentioned. | ||
|
Elite_Fury
United States17 Posts
| ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
You don't start off 4-0 vs someone you've beat twice before. Loser first time already has a punishment. Has its purpose completely defeated/bypassed if someone just loses one series, then goes on to win without meeting the person he lost to again. If you win the extended series, shouldn't you be back in Winners Bracket? What happens then? This idea just has too many contradictions. =/ | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
Trevoc
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
IAttackYou
United States330 Posts
| ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
On December 02 2010 15:12 IAttackYou wrote: I really don't understand why some of you guys thinks its unfair. Considering how the winner of the winner's bracket plays the winner of loser's bracket in the finals, what if you already beaten the person before? Is it fair for the winner to lose the grand prize in a series to an player who already he beaten? I don't believe so. There should be some kind of advantage to the winner and tournament should be based on how you do the whole tournament, not just one series at a time. But there is an advantage to the winner.. The winners bracket winner has to lose 2 best of 3s to the loser bracket winner, where he only has to win 1 best of 3. That's basic double elimination format. | ||
|
Whommp
United States1 Post
| ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
| ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38799 Posts
On December 02 2010 16:42 enzym wrote: It's a good rule. There should be a significant drawback to being pushed into the loser's bracket. It is not about being pushed into the loser bracket. It is about the history of 2 players within 1 tournament. I like the extended series for when the W meets the L in the final. If it is a bo9 then where the previous games counted, instead of the 2 times Bo3 in case the L player wins the first Bo3. I dislike the extended series when W meets L in the loser bracket. But I love double elimination. And I find it a bit poor that gsl didn't have one in the qualification rounds. But due to the massive amount of players I can understand why not. | ||
|
Mongery
892 Posts
| ||
|
SlapMySalami
United States1060 Posts
On December 02 2010 16:42 enzym wrote: It's a good rule. There should be a significant drawback to being pushed into the loser's bracket. So what happens when the guy that beat you gets knocked into the loser bracket and faces you again? What is his significant drawback? Starting 2-0 against someone he already beat? | ||
| ||
