EPTDo you like MLG's extended series rule? - Page 9
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
|
HopLight
Sweden999 Posts
| ||
|
Onlinejaguar
Australia2823 Posts
| ||
|
Scamp
United States1086 Posts
Why would a series be less interesting to watch when someone is already down 2-0? First off, HOW did one of the players get down 2-0? And do people really lose interest when one side has a lead? If two people I want to see play are playing, then I'm interested in seeing them play. Unless the 2-0 score has a drastic effect on the way the players are going to play then I'm going to want to watch them play. It's not like the person who is down two games is just going to mess around and give up. I can understand the dislike of having to win more games to win a set, but in no way is the system unfair. Every single player has the same odds of winning upon entering the tournament (not factoring in player skill) and are affected by the tourney rules in the same way. I really wonder about the people who have made comments on the double elimination system. Any comments. Anyway, the point of the double elimination system is not to give people second chances. That's just the mechanic that produces the desired results. The desired results of a double-elimination tournament are the top two players. That's it. Everything after the top two can be skewed due to improper brackets. This is, of course, assuming no upsets. But you don't really factor that in when preparing a tourney. Lots of comments can be attributed to the flaws of the double-elim system. But it is the best system to use in general when factoring in accuracy and time. If you have more time you can run a more accurate system. | ||
|
pheno
Germany33 Posts
| ||
|
L0thar
987 Posts
I'm quite surprised seeing the results, but people generally just like to hate new things, that's all... Hope MLG will keep it. | ||
|
SlapMySalami
United States1060 Posts
On December 02 2010 20:28 pheno wrote: Solid rule. we can see that when you vote are you trolling or can you back it up with any logic? | ||
|
SlapMySalami
United States1060 Posts
On December 02 2010 18:50 Scamp wrote: I'm not strongly in favor of the extended series but some of the comments are simply puzzling. Why would a series be less interesting to watch when someone is already down 2-0? First off, HOW did one of the players get down 2-0? And do people really lose interest when one side has a lead? If two people I want to see play are playing, then I'm interested in seeing them play. Unless the 2-0 score has a drastic effect on the way the players are going to play then I'm going to want to watch them play. It's not like the person who is down two games is just going to mess around and give up. I can understand the dislike of having to win more games to win a set, but in no way is the system unfair. Every single player has the same odds of winning upon entering the tournament (not factoring in player skill) and are affected by the tourney rules in the same way. I really wonder about the people who have made comments on the double elimination system. Any comments. Anyway, the point of the double elimination system is not to give people second chances. That's just the mechanic that produces the desired results. The desired results of a double-elimination tournament are the top two players. That's it. Everything after the top two can be skewed due to improper brackets. This is, of course, assuming no upsets. But you don't really factor that in when preparing a tourney. Lots of comments can be attributed to the flaws of the double-elim system. But it is the best system to use in general when factoring in accuracy and time. If you have more time you can run a more accurate system. I elaborated more in a previous post but say you lose ro5 and climb your way back to the finals against the person that beat you. You collectively have to go 14-1. Your opponent only has to go 9-1. Clearly the loser is already at the disadvantage. Now he starts 2-0 against that person even though he has already redeemed himself from the earlier loss by having to play 5 extra matches as his punishment AND already being at the disadvantage of having to play an extra match that his opponent did earn for himself. Say the loser does not face the guy he lost to ever again but still makes it to the finals. He has still played 14-1 and his opponent still has the chance to go 9-1. Why do you have to include the variable that is the player he plays? Why is that even necessary? | ||
|
wololo
Sweden10 Posts
| ||
|
Malloy
Canada166 Posts
If Y plays X and wins the original series 2-0, he has demonstrated that he is better than X. If Y meets X in the losers bracket, X now needs to demonstrate that the first series was merely bad luck and he is indeed better; thus, he must win 4 games and avoid losing an additional 2. If the extended series didn't exist, and Y meets X in the losers bracket and a fresh best of 3 occurs. X wins two games and moves on when X has only actually demonstrated that he is AS GOOD AS Y (2-2 extended). Conclusion; extended series removes an unfair advatage that is gained by the loser of the first round. | ||
|
wololo
Sweden10 Posts
-snip- Another point is, when you consider the Extended Series a bo7 as a lot of yes sayers does if X wins the match in the Losers Bracket, then he has won the entire bo7 and should therefor not be in the Losers Bracket, but that wouldn't work. That should prove the rule is flawed. Your logic is wrong, if X where to win in the Losers Bracket and tie the score he has not been given an advantage. They both had the chance to prove themselves against each other, and the one with the fewest losses goes on. It has nothing to do with who is the better player, it has everything to do with who has won the most and lost the least. I also want to make a comparison to lets say the World Cup in football, Lets say X team wins over Y team in the group stage, but both manages to advance into the brackets, then Y meets X again and this time Y comes out the victor and therefor knocks out X that managed to beat them before. Yes they have tied the score, neither one of them has proved themselves to be the superior team but that's just the way the format of the tournament works. If every other tournament has decided to go without this silly extended series bullshit, that should give away something about its validity. EDIT: My first point about the extended series was completely wrong, now that i actually read what i wrote, but all else still works, lol. | ||
|
pi_rate_pir_ate
United States179 Posts
It is also true that the player who won the 1st series has subsequently LOST, but his penalty for losing is lessened because he went longer in the tournament before losing. What is not taken into consideration is that the player who has stayed alive longest in the losers bracket has actually OUTPERFORMED the player now in the losers bracket by winning more series than him. The issue, is that if the player who must win 3 games to win a BO7 loses, he will still have lost ONLY 1 series. The tournament, only for players experiencing a rematch in the losers bracket, is now a double elimination OR loss of a BO7. They are not the same thing, making the tournament slanted against people who end up in a BO7. He has not been double eliminated in the same way that every other double losing player has been. A BO7 is not the same as 2 BO3. For instance, if there were only 2 players head to head, and to eliminate each other they had to beat them in 2 BO3 the tournament would actually be either a BO7 or a first to 4 wins in 8 games or a BO9. Losing two BO3 is NOT THE SAME as losing a BO7. Scenario: Game 1 Series 1 Player A > Player B Game 2 Series 2 Player A > Player B.........Series 1 = A2-B0 Game 1 Series 2 Player A > Player B Game 2 Series 2 Player A < Player B Game 3 Series 2 Player A < Player B.........Series 2 = A1-B2 Game 1 Series 3 Player A > Player B Game 2 Series 3 Player A < Player B Game 3 Series 3 Player A < Player B..........Series 3 = A1-B2 .......................................Head2Head A4-B4 .......................................B wins series 2-1 Player A won 4 games before player B won 4 games, they both won 4 games. Only player A lost two BO3. | ||
|
pi_rate_pir_ate
United States179 Posts
On December 03 2010 00:22 wololo wrote: @ Malloy If you consider the Extended Series as two bo3's then yes if X won in the Losers Bracket they are tied in score and neither one of them have proved to be the better player therefor it is judged according to the total amount of losses they have suffered and Y has lost one more game in total in the tournament so he does not deserve to move on. Another point is, when you consider the Extended Series a bo7 as a lot of yes sayers does if X wins the match in the Losers Bracket, then he has won the entire bo7 and should therefor not be in the Losers Bracket, but that wouldn't work. That should prove the rule is flawed. Your logic is wrong, if X where to win in the Losers Bracket and tie the score he has not been given an advantage. They both had the chance to prove themselves against each other, and the one with the fewest losses goes on. It has nothing to do with who is the better player, it has everything to do with who has won the most and lost the least. I also want to make a comparison to lets say the World Cup in football, Lets say X team wins over Y team in the group stage, but both manages to advance into the brackets, then Y meets X again and this time Y comes out the victor and therefor knocks out X that managed to beat them before. Yes they have tied the score, neither one of them has proved themselves to be the superior team but that's just the way the format of the tournament works. If every other tournament has decided to go without this silly extended series bullshit, that should give away something about its validity. Excerpt from above quote: "Another point is, when you consider the Extended Series a bo7 as a lot of yes sayers does if X wins the match in the Losers Bracket, then he has won the entire bo7 and should therefor not be in the Losers Bracket" Exactly! And if he loses the extended series he still has not lost twice and therefore has not yet been double eliminated. | ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
| ||
|
wololo
Sweden10 Posts
Also, i agree with everything pi_rate_pir_ate wrote, the point about the player not been double eliminated if he looses the extended series is spot on. EDIT: It would be super awesome if someone could bring this to the attention of the MLG suits. | ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
Sure, it's not technically a double elimination, but it's still a second chance because the series is extended. That's all a double elimination is. A second chance. It isn't unfair. That said, there isn't any reason to do it either. There's no benefit to it other than doing it for the sake of doing it. Just playing a regular match would work perfectly fine as well. | ||
|
Excstazy
Colombia46 Posts
| ||
|
trevabob
United Kingdom350 Posts
| ||
|
Furycrab
Canada456 Posts
The main reason it is there is so if you end up in situation where Player A beats player B 2-0 and say they meet up again and Player B goes 2-1 you don't end up with a scenario where Player B effectively goes forward and in the overall scheme these two players are now 3-2 with each other. It also works both ways, if say I knock out a player into the loser bracket 2-1 and he comes back say 2 rounds later into the winners bracket final. It is now a BO7 where it's 2-1 instead of being a situation where it's two seperate BO3s where I have to win one. Without the rule you can end up with messy situations where... You CAN end up with things like these: The two finalists ending up going dead even 4-4 on games where the order of the wins determines an arbitrary winner. For instance 2-1 0-2 2-1 gives it to the guy in Winners, 2-0 1-2 1-2 gives it to the guy who went to losers bracket. Maps can end up replayed... It can be a mess. Instead of just a straight up final. It just boils down to the fact that if you are running a double elim tournament, extended series is a very good rule. The fact that you don't see it in any other Starcraft tournament is because none of them run double elim. I don't think anyone will argue that double elim is better at this stage of the game since you soften up the random factor since player seeds are still very very very volatile(and much much better than BO1 Group, *sound of me facepalming at Dreamhack*) and helps the players, especially those who travel to these events... EG Machine I think can attest to how much it sucks ending up with a strong matchup in the very first match. | ||
|
Malloy
Canada166 Posts
On December 03 2010 00:22 wololo wrote: Another point is, when you consider the Extended Series a bo7 as a lot of yes sayers does if X wins the match in the Losers Bracket, then he has won the entire bo7 and should therefor not be in the Losers Bracket, but that wouldn't work. That should prove the rule is flawed. It's unfortunate that you see it this way. The first time X was eliminated is when he played Y in the first round of three. He then went on in the losers bracket and won at least one series and was matched agaisnt Y again. Since Y has already proved to be better than X (according to the best of three), X needs to really show himself to be proven better than Y. The question is not "Has X truly been double eliminated?" it is "Is X truly a better player than Y?". On December 03 2010 00:22 wololo wrote: Your logic is wrong, if X where to win in the Losers Bracket and tie the score he has not been given an advantage. They both had the chance to prove themselves against each other, and the one with the fewest losses goes on. It has nothing to do with who is the better player, it has everything to do with who has won the most and lost the least. If extended series isn't present and Y first won 2 games and X later wins 2 games....they both have won 2 games. X gets an advantage by moving on with an equal number of wins. (There should be a tie breaker game) On December 03 2010 00:22 wololo wrote: I also want to make a comparison to lets say the World Cup in football, Lets say X team wins over Y team in the group stage, but both manages to advance into the brackets, then Y meets X again and this time Y comes out the victor and therefor knocks out X that managed to beat them before. Yes they have tied the score, neither one of them has proved themselves to be the superior team but that's just the way the format of the tournament works. If every other tournament has decided to go without this silly extended series bullshit, that should give away something about its validity. Your point above, to me, only clarifies that the tournament bracket system is flawed...not that there is something unfair about the extended series. As such, I will not reply to it. Here are tournament bracket options taht present various degrees of accuracy, sorted from least accurate to most accurate. (note that the point of a tournament is to figure out who the best player is); Single Elimination Double Elimination Double Elimination with Extended Series Swiss-System Tournament Round Robin Double Round Robin X Round Robin (X being any number above 2) Since Swiss-System requires many games to be played at once and Round Robin requires too many games to be played, tournaments tend to favor Single or Double Elimination. Edit: fixing quotes. | ||
|
Excomm
United States152 Posts
Game 1 Game 2 Result 2-0 2-0 Player A wins 4-0 2-0 2-1 Player A wins 4-1 2-0 1-2 Player A loses 3-2 (how is this fair?) 2-0 0-2 Player A loses 2-2 (how is this fair?) 2-1 2-0 Player A wins 4-1 2-1 2-1 Player A wins 4-2 2-1 1-2 Player A loses 3-3 (how is this fair?) 2-1 0-2 Player A loses 2-3 (this is a fair outcome) Now looking at an extended series Game 1 Game 2 Result 2-0 2-0 Player A wins 4-0 2-0 2-1 Player A wins 4-1 2-0 1-2 Player A is up 3-2 and must win the next game to win 2-0 0-2 The series is now tied 2-2 and forces another bo3 series 2-1 2-0 Player A wins 4-1 2-1 2-1 Player A wins 4-2 2-1 1-2 The series is now tied 3-3 and the next game determines the winner 2-1 0-2 Player A is down 2-3 and must win 2 games to come back If you want to bash the double elimination system, go right ahead, but if you think the extended series is worse than a regular double elimination style I have to disagree with you. A regular double elimination tournament can result in 3 outcomes where the winner did not beat the loser when the games are summed over the entire tournament. In the extended series the loser of the first series will win if he beats his opponent in total games played at the tournament. If the tournament is going to be double elimination, then the extended series rule makes it more fair in my opinion. *edit fixed a typo in the score tallies and apparently the Game 1 Game 2 table did not space correctly, but you get the idea. | ||
| ||
