EPTPlayer L plays Player W in the first round. W beats L 2-1, sending him into the loser's bracket. In a later round of the loser's bracket, W and L meet again. In a typical double-elimination tournament, this would be a standard best of 3. However, in an extended series rule, player L will enter a bo7 rule down 2-1.
Do you like MLG's extended series rule?
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
Chill
Calgary25970 Posts
Player L plays Player W in the first round. W beats L 2-1, sending him into the loser's bracket. In a later round of the loser's bracket, W and L meet again. In a typical double-elimination tournament, this would be a standard best of 3. However, in an extended series rule, player L will enter a bo7 rule down 2-1. | ||
|
Manlot
Mexico111 Posts
| ||
|
ffz
United States490 Posts
| ||
|
let_FLY
80 Posts
| ||
|
xaeiu
432 Posts
it's actually just a slightly tougher position for player L since he has now to win 3 instead of 2 sets, so just one more in the exbo7 than in the usual bo3. W has to win either way 2 sets, right? so nothing changes for him. | ||
|
Arco
United States2090 Posts
Get rid of this crappy rule ASAP, it would be completely unacceptable to keep it in the rules. Almost mind boggling who is pulling the strings at MLG. Why can't they hire rule admins that know stuff about games they admin? | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
It makes the finals anticlimactic (with or without extended series, the finals are not fun when one person has a big advantage) and the tournament hard to follow. | ||
|
ReketSomething
United States6012 Posts
go math | ||
|
SadStarcraft
Mexico56 Posts
| ||
|
Count9
China10928 Posts
On December 01 2010 14:48 ReketSomething wrote: At first I thought this rule was the most garbage EVER...made absolutely NO SENSE. AFter hearing tyler's argument, he is right. Having the extended series produces an overall better ranking and therefore Im going to vote FOR IT go math Did you listen to the SotG podcast? | ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
| ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
"MLG is the best tournament in America" /sigh | ||
|
Blackrobe
United States806 Posts
/sigh | ||
|
Alou
United States3748 Posts
| ||
|
GrapeD
Canada679 Posts
On December 01 2010 14:26 Chill wrote: The extended series rule is as follows: Player L plays Player W in the first round. W beats L 2-1, sending him into the loser's bracket. In a later round of the loser's bracket, W and L meet again. In a typical double-elimination tournament, this would be a standard best of 3. However, in an extended series rule, player L will enter a bo7 rule down 2-1. Is this for every game thereafter he beats him? finals included? | ||
|
Zamiel
United States211 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
elkram
United States221 Posts
| ||
|
Chill
Calgary25970 Posts
On December 01 2010 14:55 GrapeD wrote: Is this for every game thereafter he beats him? finals included? Yes. | ||
|
TaKemE
Denmark1045 Posts
ppl saying its fair have no idea what they are talking about and should realy think some more about it. Even for a game like Halo its unfair and you will never find a math expert saying its fair. Heres just one good point from Idra: IdrA made the good point that if you lose to someone in the winners bracket, and then they lose later in the tournament to someone else, then they face you in the losers bracket there is no reason they should be up any games on you because they lost to a person you may not have lost to. Technically they're down just as many games as you and now because of the luck of the draw they're going against you again and have an advantage. | ||
|
R0YAL
United States1768 Posts
Player A vs. Player B Player A wins 2-0 and sends Player B to the losers bracket. Later they face each other again and Player B ends up winning 2-1 knocking Player A out of the tournament. The official score between the two is 3-2 in favor of Player A but Player B advances because he won "the one that counts." I think it's more unfair without the extended series rule tbh. | ||
|
TheKanAry
United States149 Posts
If the 'better' player loses in a best of whatever, it is because, A: He messed up B:He wasn't in fact the 'better' player C:The other player won in a cheap fashion, due to the map, racial balance etc. (do note all these assume one player is obviously better than the other) That being said i would like to state that it is in fact the Game, NOT the tourney that is meant to determine the better player. | ||
|
Phraxas
Australia7 Posts
InControl: "I will f*ing smash you in an arm wrestle. Does that mean that the next time we play I need a small child punching you in the crotch whilst we have a rematch?" | ||
|
TaKemE
Denmark1045 Posts
On December 01 2010 15:09 R0YAL wrote: I voted yes and heres why from the perspective of if this rule was non-existent. Player A vs. Player B Player A wins 2-0 and sends Player B to the losers bracket. Later they face each other again and Player B ends up winning 2-1 knocking Player A out of the tournament. The official score between the two is 3-2 in favor of Player A but Player B advances because he won "the one that counts." I think it's more unfair without the extended series rule tbh. Thats true and thats how it should be, your forgetting that player B also lost to another guy in winner bracket that player A dident lose to. When useing the extended series Player A would have to lose 3 bo3 to be out of the tournament if he gets lucky and he plays a guy he already played before (B) in loser bracket, while others are out if they lose 2 and how is that fair? Its like the game Player A lost in winner bracket dosent matter anymore when he faces one he already played. | ||
|
Noxide
United States2870 Posts
| ||
|
BobbyPG
United States35 Posts
| ||
|
Al Bundy
7257 Posts
| ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
a) losing two different series or b) losing both legs of an extended series (similar to a) or c) losing the first leg of an extended series then not winning the second leg by enough Losing one series, regular or extended, shouldn't bump you from a double elimination. A hypothetical example being A>B WW C>A WW B>C WW B>A WLWWL If we view each as a series, then we have the records A 1-2 B 2-1 C 1-1 By double elimination rules, A should be eliminated as he is the only player to lose twice. However B, the only player with a record above .500, is eliminated. (obviously in order for this to occur the players would have to play other people in between, and it's only possible for some kinds of bracket configurations. Hence, hypothetical example) But even if we view it as three extended series, then you have A>B 4-3 B>C 2-0 C>A 2-0 Which again, somehow eliminates B, despite the fact that his loss was the closest. As a side note, look at the 1960 World Series as an analogy. Pittsburgh won 4 games while New York won 3. If you tally the entire series as one game though, New York won 55-27. Which team do you feel should be champion? | ||
|
dekuschrub
United States2069 Posts
 additionally I dont think it is fair. Just because you fucked up a series where elimination is not possible doesnt mean you should have a disadvantage when elimination is possible. tournaments should value winning later clutch matches rather than give innate advantages to the guy who was in winners bracket longer | ||
|
Hoju
United States449 Posts
It's not like extended series has been tested in previous starcraft tournaments (as far as I know), so it's not something that's been done before and proven to be bad. If we dismissed every idea because "that's not how we do things" nothing would ever change and no progress would be made. So, please feel free to argue the merits of each concept, but at least be open to concepts like extended series that are new to starcraft. | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
| ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
| ||
|
suicideMARE
Canada160 Posts
| ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
With this rule, the vaunted Bo3/Bo5 dynamics are fundamentally changed. The mental challenge of winning a Bo5, and the viewing pleasure of watching mind games in action is undeniably cheapened when one player heads into the series with such a huge advantage (Both the knowledge that he's won before, and being at least a game ahead of his opponent). For this reason alone, the rule should not stand. | ||
|
ComusLoM
Norway3547 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
MLG should dodge the issue entirely and switch to single elimination with Bo5/Bo7 for the later rounds. | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9102 Posts
| ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
On December 01 2010 16:31 jalstar wrote: It's actually more "fair" than not having it (which can and has been proved mathematically in previous threads) but it would be better to use it in a longer tournament, since it causes more games. MLG should dodge the issue entirely and switch to single elimination with Bo5/Bo7 for the later rounds. How can 'fairness' possibly be proved mathematically? One can easily say that the losing player has earned the right to play against the winner, by fighting their way through the loser's bracket. To have to play on an uneven footing could be considered unfair; why does the winner need an advantage in any case? What the entire argument should come down to, because the rest is all simply perspective, is: What does the rule add to the tournament? I've yet to hear any arguments on this level for the rule, and i've clearly outlined how the rule is detrimental both for the spectators, and the sanctity of the Bo5 series, which has a long and colourful history. Everybody who's watched a Bo5 between two great players knows that it isn't simply a collection of single games, it is so much more. The extended series rule cheapens this great institution immeasurably. Scrap it, it doesn't add anything. | ||
|
StarPolice
United States327 Posts
On December 01 2010 16:40 Alethios wrote: How can 'fairness' possibly be proved mathematically? By assuming both players are of equal skill and both have a 50% chance of winning each match and seeing how their odds change after each match. | ||
|
Mr_Kzimir
France268 Posts
Instead of going for a survival BO7, why not simply extend the BO3 to a BO5. Cause in all fairness the 1st match looser , already got punished by being thrown in the losers bracket. The only person who should deserve this advantage is the guy who didn't lose the whole tournament , everyone else is given a chance to stay alive , thus they should not deserve a higher chance of staying alive when they are all dead and even more when you take in count the fact that if they do a rematch they likely gonna have the same lose/win ratio. | ||
|
mOnion
United States5653 Posts
On December 01 2010 15:09 R0YAL wrote: I voted yes and heres why from the perspective of if this rule was non-existent. Player A vs. Player B Player A wins 2-0 and sends Player B to the losers bracket. Later they face each other again and Player B ends up winning 2-1 knocking Player A out of the tournament. The official score between the two is 3-2 in favor of Player A but Player B advances because he won "the one that counts." I think it's more unfair without the extended series rule tbh. you made me vote yes get your own IP >_< i think this becomes an issue of "where does it stop". what if they played each other in another city during MLG's tour and Player B won 2-0? What if player A is 15-0 against player B on the ladder? this might be a case of TOO fair. I think each match should be isolated occurrences where history doesn't matter. | ||
|
HollowLord
United States3862 Posts
| ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
On December 01 2010 16:45 StarPolice wrote: By assuming both players are of equal skill and both have a 50% chance of winning each match and seeing how their odds change after each match. Choose a slightly different set of criteria, and what is 'fair' changes. Fairness is not objective, cannot be objective. In any case, the point remains, what does this rule add to the tournament? In order to justify itself, it would have to be shown to add more than it takes away from the traditional finals series. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
applejuice
307 Posts
Win-win. It ensures the best player wins. You guys seriously want a player to WIN a tournament after getting BEAT 3-2 by the guy in second place? Imagine: If the series were best-of-seven, this would balloon to 7-4. MLG cares about the integrity of its tournaments. This is rare, and points to why they have been so successful. | ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
On December 01 2010 15:14 Phraxas wrote: The extended series is bollocks. InControl: "I will f*ing smash you in an arm wrestle. Does that mean that the next time we play I need a small child punching you in the crotch whilst we have a rematch?" According to this logic winner of the first series (player W) is almost always going to win in the second series 2 to 0 or 2 to 1, etc. Which means nothing changes. If nothing's different then I'd rather keep the chance of up to 4 games more. In a tournament of this caliber it shouldn't hurt to be able to watch more games. And come backs are always exciting? TBH it's spectators and not MLG players, who are giving most of the votes in this poll. This means people voting "No" are voting for less games to watch. What a successful game SC2 is, there is so many good games to watch people are voting against watching even more O_o It's MLG participants who should decide this, it shouldn't be decided by general public. And I hope not to learn that majority of top players are whiners looking for excuses. Or am I talking out of my ass and pressure during live events is that big even for experienced players? | ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
On December 01 2010 16:57 beetlelisk wrote: According to this logic winner of the first series (player W) is almost always going to win in the second series 2 to 0 or 2 to 1, etc. Which means nothing changes. If nothing's different then I'd rather keep the chance of up to 4 games more. In a tournament of this caliber it shouldn't hurt to be able to watch more games. And come backs are always exciting? TBH it's spectators and not MLG players, who are giving most of the votes in this poll. This means people voting "No" are voting for less games to watch. What a successful game SC2 is, there is so many good games to watch people are voting against watching even more O_o It's MLG participants who should decide this, it shouldn't be decided by general public. And I hope not to learn that majority of top players are whiners looking for excuses. Or am I talking out of my ass and pressure during live events is that big even for experienced players? The difference is you have to watch a crappy second series, because one of the players has to try and play while being punched in the crotch by a small child. Who cares if you get to watch more games if the quality of those games isn't as good? And do we really get to see more games anyway? Finally, your argument that it should be decided by the players is also flawed. The players do what they're told, because the alternative is not playing for the cash prize. The spectators are the ones with their hands untied and are able to say "No, this rule is bullshit, what does it add?". | ||
|
ragingfungus
United States271 Posts
On December 01 2010 16:40 Alethios wrote: How can 'fairness' possibly be proved mathematically? One can easily say that the losing player has earned the right to play against the winner, by fighting their way through the loser's bracket. To have to play on an uneven footing could be considered unfair; why does the winner need an advantage in any case? What the entire argument should come down to, because the rest is all simply perspective, is: What does the rule add to the tournament? I've yet to hear any arguments on this level for the rule, and i've clearly outlined how the rule is detrimental both for the spectators, and the sanctity of the Bo5 series, which has a long and colourful history. Everybody who's watched a Bo5 between two great players knows that it isn't simply a collection of single games, it is so much more. The extended series rule cheapens this great institution immeasurably. Scrap it, it doesn't add anything. The same way you can mathematically prove that bo5s are more fair than bo3s. Now obviously extended series isnt as big of an impact as that, but it is still an impact. Now if you want to argue that it isn't that great for spectators then you may have a point, though I could argue that watching someone come back from someone they were losing to makes for some entertainment. The main thing I would argue for though is in my opinion one of biggest things a tournament should be trying to accomplish is making sure the players are getting to the rank in the tournament that they deserve to be in and making it as unrandomized as possible and extended series adds to that. Also on a side note I think people are blowing this out of proportion. The first reason being that I believe Lee was saying something about adding championship brackets so if you make it to the top 16 the extended series doesn't even apply anymore(can someone clarify this?). Also because its a rare case when this happens and when it does the winner is likely to win again either way. | ||
|
Kishkumen
United States650 Posts
| ||
|
Deyster
Jordan579 Posts
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. | ||
|
nehl
Germany270 Posts
| ||
|
applejuice
307 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. Agreed. But don't put it like "advantage" or the "WTF we don't like change" crowd will pounce all over that. It's an advantage, sure, but not the kind of advantage that gives an edge to any player in the grand-scheme of the tournament. At the beginning of that extended series, it's still up to each respective player to prove that they can beat their opponent the majority of the time they do battle. One player just happened to win the first two games. Which is exactly what is should be. Fair. | ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
On December 01 2010 17:06 ragingfungus wrote: The same way you can mathematically prove that bo5s are more fair than bo3s. Now obviously extended series isnt as big of an impact as that, but it is still an impact. Now if you want to argue that it isn't that great for spectators then you may have a point, though I could argue that watching someone come back from someone they were losing to makes for some entertainment. The main thing I would argue for though is in my opinion one of biggest things a tournament should be trying to accomplish is making sure the players are getting to the rank in the tournament that they deserve to be in and making it as unrandomized as possible and extended series adds to that. You have a fair point there. Maths does account for something in that case, but it still misses the bigger picture because it always counts a series as a simply conglomeration of single games. My argument is that it isn't, not shall it ever be. A best of five series contains mind games, tests mental strength, truly pits one player against another. An extended series pits one player against another that has a massive advantage right from the start, if you're two games down already, how can you possibly risk cheese or some unorthodox strategy to catch the opponent off guard when, if it fails you lose. Meanwhile, the previous winner knows that he can discount cheese for the most part, and can do whatever he wants right from the first round. This is no true test of skill. This does not ensure that players are getting the rank the deserve to be in. If they beat an opponent earlier, they should be able to do so once again in a 'more fair' Bo5. Furthermore, this is just my opinion of course, but how can a comeback from an artificially created position of 2 games down possibly be as exciting as a comeback from losing the first two games of a Bo5, then the player rallying his resolve and determination and finishing the nail biting series 3-2. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the extended series rule is more 'fair'. The fact remains that the purpose of a tournament is not to create some ranking system (thats what ladders are for). It is to crown a champion, who should not have their win cheapened by the simple fact that the person they played in the grand finals they were lucky enough to edge out earlier in the tournament and thus go into the finals with a massive advantage. | ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
On December 01 2010 17:04 Alethios wrote: The difference is you have to watch a crappy second series, because one of the players has to try and play while being punched in the crotch by a small child. Who cares if you get to watch more games if the quality of those games isn't as good? And do we really get to see more games anyway? Finally, your argument that it should be decided by the players is also flawed. The players do what they're told, because the alternative is not playing for the cash prize. The spectators are the ones with their hands untied and are able to say "No, this rule is bullshit, what does it add?". How can you tell MLG doesn't listen to feedback? Why would they keep something that hurts quality of games which means less spectators watching which means less revenue from sponsors? Who can give better feedback than those that experience this first hand? Are you sure each time you watched player L lose again in something like that it was because he was overpressured and not just worse? I don't know if were far enough in the future to be able to say: strategies and scene is so developed that differences in players' skill are small enough for 1 or 2 game lead in a series to be huge and with no chance to overcome it, in every single case. Even in BW, after 11 years, epic come backs happen? | ||
|
Pyrrhuloxia
United States6700 Posts
| ||
|
ragingfungus
United States271 Posts
On December 01 2010 17:22 Alethios wrote: You have a fair point there. Maths does account for something in that case, but it still misses the bigger picture because it always counts a series as a simply conglomeration of single games. My argument is that it isn't, not shall it ever be. A best of five series contains mind games, tests mental strength, truly pits one player against another. An extended series pits one player against another that has a massive advantage right from the start, if you're two games down already, how can you possibly risk cheese or some unorthodox strategy to catch the opponent off guard when, if it fails you lose. Meanwhile, the previous winner knows that he can discount cheese for the most part, and can do whatever he wants right from the first round. This is no true test of skill. This does not ensure that players are getting the rank the deserve to be in. If they beat an opponent earlier, they should be able to do so once again in a 'more fair' Bo5. Furthermore, this is just my opinion of course, but how can a comeback from an artificially created position of 2 games down possibly be as exciting as a comeback from losing the first two games of a Bo5, then the player rallying his resolve and determination and finishing the nail biting series 3-2. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the extended series rule is more 'fair'. The fact remains that the purpose of a tournament is not to create some ranking system (thats what ladders are for). It is to crown a champion, who should not have their win cheapened by the simple fact that the person they played in the grand finals they were lucky enough to edge out earlier in the tournament and thus go into the finals with a massive advantage. I disagree with your statement that tournaments shouldn't try to rank players. I believe a tournament should do everything in its power to try to rank the better players higher than the worse ones. Why does everyone hate bo1s? Because it ranks players terribly. The less effort a tournament puts into trying to rank players the more it becomes a random lottery on who wins. Nobody wants to see a terrible player get 1st place. On a side note its also bad for the pro scene. The best should consistently be placing higher up. You can't make a career from it if random people are constantly knocking you out of tournaments because they have terrible systems. | ||
|
speedphlux
Bulgaria962 Posts
| ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
| ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
On December 01 2010 17:22 Alethios wrote: You have a fair point there. Maths does account for something in that case, but it still misses the bigger picture because it always counts a series as a simply conglomeration of single games. My argument is that it isn't, not shall it ever be. A best of five series contains mind games, tests mental strength, truly pits one player against another. An extended series pits one player against another that has a massive advantage right from the start, if you're two games down already, how can you possibly risk cheese or some unorthodox strategy to catch the opponent off guard when, if it fails you lose. Meanwhile, the previous winner knows that he can discount cheese for the most part, and can do whatever he wants right from the first round. This is no true test of skill. This does not ensure that players are getting the rank the deserve to be in. If they beat an opponent earlier, they should be able to do so once again in a 'more fair' Bo5. Furthermore, this is just my opinion of course, but how can a comeback from an artificially created position of 2 games down possibly be as exciting as a comeback from losing the first two games of a Bo5, then the player rallying his resolve and determination and finishing the nail biting series 3-2. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the extended series rule is more 'fair'. The fact remains that the purpose of a tournament is not to create some ranking system (thats what ladders are for). It is to crown a champion, who should not have their win cheapened by the simple fact that the person they played in the grand finals they were lucky enough to edge out earlier in the tournament and thus go into the finals with a massive advantage. About part in bold - how can you tell that? Player L can as well think "he's going to feel confident thinking I'm not so..." The truly only strategies they are going to feel confident in are those that won them games in previous encounter, the only strategies they truly fear are those they've lost to. And between both encounters they can prepare against those they lost to, they don't go straight into the rest of series. In this way it can be even more fair than a Bo series without advantages because some strategies are player specific. For example I don't know if there was any other game played during a big tournament like this with cloaked Banshees used against Colossus based Protoss army, like in Tyler vs PainUser on Xel'Naga. This series has also the best example why winner should get something for winning - discarded game 1 because someone forgot LT wasn't supposed to be played first. | ||
|
butter
United States785 Posts
On December 01 2010 17:44 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: It is much worse for spectators. It's hard to hype things up and get excited to watch when one player starts off behind the 8 ball. On the contrary, I got totally engrossed watching an epic best-of-8 (wat) over Tyler's shoulder (after the director woke up and took the giant MLG logo off the screen). | ||
|
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. | ||
|
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
England2657 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
Calgary25970 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
Calgary25970 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
England2657 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
Calgary25970 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
Calgary25970 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
Canada6163 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 | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On December 01 2010 17:44 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: It is much worse for spectators. It's hard to hype things up and get excited to watch when one player starts off behind the 8 ball. Indeed. Watching a finals with one guy starting out 2-0 is neither fun, nor fair. | ||
|
ComusLoM
Norway3547 Posts
| ||
|
Flicky
England2657 Posts
YesI do, I was just pointing out a difference, unfortunately Naz has a good point with: On December 02 2010 01:52 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: ] 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. | ||
|
keeblur
United States826 Posts
| ||
|
zemiron
United States481 Posts
| ||
|
Bosu
United States3247 Posts
| ||
|
Thetan
240 Posts
On December 02 2010 02:10 keeblur wrote: Imagine a BO1 Tourney with Winner / Losers Brackets. You lose then run into the guy you beat in the Winner Bracket down in the Losers. Would your opponent default lose because you already have one game up on him? Just saying. OR they could just do a bo3 extended series, where the first person to 2 wins overall goes through. That sounds pretty fair, doesn't it? That's closer to what MLG does than your situation | ||
|
keeblur
United States826 Posts
On December 02 2010 02:48 Thetan wrote: OR they could just do a bo3 extended series, where the first person to 2 wins overall goes through. That sounds pretty fair, doesn't it? That's closer to what MLG does than your situation Actually what I wrote doesn't make sense, because it would be the same case for anything that stayed the same number of matches to win throughout the tourney. | ||
|
ulf5
Sweden208 Posts
| ||
|
Gnarg
Netherlands165 Posts
| ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
Also, extended series is not a good way to filter out the "best players" because games in SC2 are always going volitile and the best player might not always win the first bo3. The concept of a tournament having a "memory" of your performance isn't interesting enough to warrant all the draw backs to extended series. After the SotG interview, it just seems like MLG are just too hung up on and proud about having their own way of doing things to be able to see that it's damaging their tournament. Basically, anything that is so convoluted that casters have to repetitively set off time to explain the system is a bad thing for the audience and the tournament as a whole. | ||
|
Canadium
Canada171 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 61629
1664 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Canadium
Canada171 Posts
| ||
|
Drteeth
Great Britain415 Posts
This isn't Halo, thank God. Who brings in the most spectators to MLG these days? I bet you a dollar to a bucket of shit it sure isn't Halo. MLG won't change as they have the Monopoly, as you guys who heard the podcast say, "best in North America" .... | ||
|
Enock927
United States30 Posts
That seems like it would be the best scenario imo | ||
|
xZiGGY
United Kingdom801 Posts
players unlucky enough to run into the people who knocked them out earlier in the tournament are effectively in a 1 - 1.5 elimination tournament due to this advantage; those lucky enough to avoid such scenarios are given full double elimination opportunities making their life much easier. (though not necessarily easy xD) | ||
|
CrAzEdBaDgEr
Canada166 Posts
| ||
|
sixfour
England11061 Posts
| ||
Jibba
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. | ||
|
glompix
United States14 Posts
That said I don't think it's a good idea to implement. | ||
|
tsuxiit
1305 Posts
| ||
|
NotTheMonker
United States131 Posts
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? | ||
|
tieya
United States308 Posts
| ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
| ||
|
crms
United States11933 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? this is actually pretty funny lol. get bumped back to winners bracket after you infact win your series vs 'X' player. =p | ||
|
Kaz04
United States53 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 makes way too much sense... when put like that I don't see how anyone could argue it makes sense | ||
|
Drium
United States888 Posts
Extended series is statistically better. | ||
|
Gooey
United States944 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, this is the best argument I have heard against it yet. Very good point. | ||
|
whataballer
United States82 Posts
| ||
|
Trajan98
Canada203 Posts
| ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
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. | ||
|
N3rV[Green]
United States1935 Posts
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. | ||
|
StockTheFridge
United States12 Posts
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. | ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
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. | ||
|
sOvrn
United States678 Posts
| ||
|
Chill
Calgary25970 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. | ||
|
TT1
Canada9990 Posts
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 | ||
|
Megreda
Finland28 Posts
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. | ||
|
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
Belgium38797 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? | ||
|
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. | ||
|
Talic_Zealot
688 Posts
Either a straight up Gom after ro 64 tournament or a straight up w/l bracket would be my choice. In any case there is always a chance for a big upset where the winner is not necessary the best player and a good but not very good chance that the best player will win. | ||
|
Najda
United States3765 Posts
On a side note, why does it work in Halo? How is their bracket any different than ours? | ||
|
Zeddicus
United States239 Posts
That being said, however, tournaments are not accurate in general. It's kind of like "Any given Sunday..." and it's what makes tournaments interesting. It's random, unpredictable. It's exciting. If we wanted to know who was the best, we shuold have everyone ladder constantly and just look at ladder rankings. Or if we wanted a tournament that was accurate, we'd have them play Bo7s all the way through, or Bo17s... Bo50s? But we can't, we don't have time for that. The only way we can hold a tournament in a reasonable amount of time with a decent amount of people is to have tournames run the way they are now. I don't really like the extended series rule, but it's not that big of a deal. I don't have any better ideas, I don't think there's much of a better way to run a tournament. | ||
|
wololo
Sweden10 Posts
without the Extended Series rule, X wins over Y in the WB 2-0, then Y wins over X in the LB 2-0. Up until this point Y has lost one match (against X) whereas X has lost two matches (one against Y and one against another person in the WB) this to me says Y deserves to move on, as he both had to play and win more games than X. EDIT: Typo: added X instead of Y. lol. | ||
|
vhdblood
4 Posts
MLG feels tourneys should be taken as one performance. They think that when you compete in a tournament it's a showing for you, so if you knock a guy out 2-0, you shouldn't have to do that later in the SAME tourney. If he knocks you out 0-2, then you should have to work even harder if you meet that player again because he's already beaten you once 2-0, and you're the same players. It's a really hard problem to come up with an answer for, but it sounds like MLG is keeping the rule so we might as well deal. | ||
|
Malloy
Canada166 Posts
On December 03 2010 04:02 wololo wrote: @malloy without the Extended Series rule, X wins over Y in the WB 2-0, then Y wins over X in the LB 2-0. Up until this point Y has lost one match (against X) whereas X has lost two matches (one against Y and one against another person in the WB) this to me says Y deserves to move on, as he both had to play and win more games than Y. What? Are you trying to say that the person in the loser bracket has to play one additional series before meeting up with the person that originally knocked them out? If you are...keep in mind that those in the losers bracket have already been tagged as been "Not as good as" those in the winners bracket. So winning your first loser's bracket series means very little in context. The second set of series in the winner's bracket should have better players than the first set of series in the loser's bracket. | ||
|
wololo
Sweden10 Posts
| ||
|
Aberu
United States968 Posts
On December 01 2010 14:44 Tump wrote: Starcraft and extended series don't belong in the same sentence. Get rid of this crappy rule ASAP, it would be completely unacceptable to keep it in the rules. Almost mind boggling who is pulling the strings at MLG. Why can't they hire rule admins that know stuff about games they admin? Actually they do. The admins for Super Smash are all well known former tournament organizers, players, etc... With SC2 it's a little newer so I think they had to squeeze in some help from their WoW division, but they have some SC people there too. | ||
|
Jampackedeon
United States2053 Posts
If Nestea had been booted to another bracket (if it wasn't the finals) in the R of 7 in the GSL... he would have LOST, instead he won 4 more games and took the series. | ||
|
Silent331
United States356 Posts
everywhere else the mods yelled at meExtended Series and Starcraft What Is Extended Series Many people know what the extended series rule is but I will still explain it for all those who don’t. Extended series is a tournament rule that says the following, in a double elimination tournament when two players play each other in the winners bracket and player A loses and player B wins than player A is put into the losers bracket, as like any other double elimination tournament. Extended series comes into play when player B loses to another player in the winners bracket and gets moved down into the losers bracket, and then because player A was moved into the losers bracket before, they get paired up again. In other words the extended rule applies when player A and player B play each other in the winners bracket and then play each other again in the losers bracket. What the extended series rule says that if player B won 2-0 in the winners bracket, and they play again in the losers bracket, than the game that would normally be a BO3 in the losers bracket becomes a BO7 with player B starting with a 2-0 on player A. Why MLG uses extended series Most of what I am going to say here comes from the SOTG cast because it is the only reliable source of why MLG uses this rule. The rule arises from the concept that a tournament is a measure of performance and that should stay with you. So that if you already beat someone in a BO3 than if you face them you are already ahead because you won against them in this tournament. The other reason it is used is because if you play someone and you beat them 2-0 and then they beat you 2-0 later than you are 2-2 but you lost because you won the first and lost the second, which they think is unfair. All of this makes sense on a player vs player level. Why it doesn’t work When using this extended series rule it is partly forgotten that the players are still playing a tournament and they are not in some arbitrary system of ranking. In a double elimination tournament every series is a best of 3 and each person, in order to stay in the tournament, cannot lose two best of 3s hence double elimination. In a double elimination the fact that if you lose once does not eliminate you brings about the possibility that players can vs the same player in two best of 3s. When this happens and the extended series rule applied this changes the structure of the tournament because of a chance happening in the winners brackets. Now that they are playing each other for the second time, the person who lost the first game, if he loses another best of 3 is still eliminated, but the winner of the first series gets to get a free loss vs this player, making it so that player gets eliminated if he loses 3 best of 3s instead of 2. What this means is that a player can advance in the losers bracket even know he already lost 2 best of 3s while the opponent he eliminated only lost 2 best of 3s. So now the person who won the first best of 3 vs a player and meets him again does not only gain an advantage over that player but he also gains an advantage over everyone else in the tournament in the light that he is allowed to lose more games than everyone else and still advance. Closing Comments Time to suck up to MLG XD. MLG you run great tourneys and I watch them all and if one comes to a town near me I will defiantly come. No part of this is to say that MLG is bad it is all simply an explanation of the rule, why its used, and some reasons that should be considered for altering this rule. | ||
|
TemplarCo.
Mexico2870 Posts
| ||
|
Furycrab
Canada456 Posts
On December 03 2010 03:52 Najda wrote: I think when they meet again in the losers bracket it should just be another Bo3, but if the person who lost the original series were to meet up with that person in the finals then it would make sense to play the extended series because the person coming from the losers bracket should be handicapped. On a side note, why does it work in Halo? How is their bracket any different than ours? I don't really want to comment on the first part since it's a matter of different views, I don't so much care who got sent to losers bracket first, what I do care is that the better of the two players in that tournament be the one going thru, not just the one who happened to win the last two games. It's not so much that it "works for halo" it's a fairly common rule in most round based play with double elim. Counterstrike has this rule very often too. Halo plays sets on different maps, and the reason for the rule is to avoid a split, where overall both teams have won an equal amount of rounds or worst, that the team with most won rounds isn't going thru. However they rarely play BO3s (usually a lot more rounds), so the impact is quite a bit less dramatic unless the first match was fairly one sided. | ||
|
Polygamy
Austria1114 Posts
I think that's how the Russians do it? | ||
|
ZomB
United States8 Posts
| ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
| ||
|
Kelsin
United States253 Posts
The other best argument (imho) about it is the fact that it means you can be eliminated from the tournament in one of two ways. Either losing 1 bo7 or losing 2 bo3's. I don't think how you're eliminated should come down to bracket luck. | ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
On December 03 2010 03:52 Najda wrote: On a side note, why does it work in Halo? How is their bracket any different than ours? Someone can correct me if i'm wrong but my understanding (as a former LAN FPS player CPL 3rd wut wut!) that HALO and other FPS games compete on a LEVEL playing field. You either out play, out think, out whatever your opponent or you don't. The team that played better will win and the better team is MORE likely to win at a much higher rate. In my previous FPS experience (team fortress classic) we held a 90%+ winrate because we were simply the better players congregated into 1 team. Now Starcraft is such a highly variable game. First, maps make a HUGE difference, getting a bad map pool for your race automatically puts you at a disadvantage. This disadvantage usually isn't insurmountable but it can be significant. This doesn't exist in (most) competitive FPS games. Not to mention how many different ways you can play SC2, build orders, cheeses, different races, etc. and the competition level at the tip top. Anyone in the top50 best players in the country can take a game or series off of one another. The best players in BW of all time have what 72% win? An insanely good gosu as fuck player may win 60% just six out of 10 games and that would make you a fucking baller. I'd wager the #50 Halo has essentially 0 chance to pull a series off the #1 Halo team. In my experience in a top FPS team I don't think we lost to anyone outside the top5 or so. | ||
|
theMedic
United States26 Posts
| ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
On December 03 2010 05:28 Silent90 wrote: When using this extended series rule it is partly forgotten that the players are still playing a tournament and they are not in some arbitrary system of ranking. I Actually, one might make the case that a tournament is in fact exactly a system of ranking. Don't college football fans want a playoff tourney so they can "know who is the best team?" The exact purpose of a play-off is to determine who is the "best team" at least for that tournament. The problem is, there are variables that affect this and prevent it from being completely accurate. In sports, especially football, playing too many more games is impractical, and hence more accurate tournament styles (such as double elimination, round-robin, etc) aren't used. But everyone wants it to be as accurate as possible. Hence computer rankings in college football. Hence series' in baseball and basketball where more than one game isn't accurate enough. Hence more games in final series too make the finals the most accurate. You already made the case for the extended series very well, I won't add to it. But your (and most other people's) criticisms seems to be centered around the fact that it hasn't been done before. In most sports double elimination tournaments aren't even possible, and so this doesn't come up, but in the confines of esports, it makes perfect sense to play the couple extra games so that the most accurate results are obtained. The only purpose of a tournament is to find a winner. | ||
|
Storm704
United States114 Posts
| ||
|
dezholling
United States7 Posts
Let's set up the usual extended series circumstances. Andy and Bob meet in WB round 1. Andy beats Bob 2-1 so that Andy goes on to WB round 2 and Bob drops to LB round 1. Now let's skip ahead to WB round 4. Andy won WB rounds 2 and 3 but loses in WB round 4. This sends Andy down to LB round 6 (you can double check me on that, but I think I'm right). Bob has also made it to LB round 6 by winning in LB rounds 1-5. Now Andy and Bob meet again. Here is where the extended series begins. People that want it say we need to think about the complete tournament performance and not just think about each series as a seperate event. I agree. Let's do this. Andy and Bob are in a Bo7 now, which replaces (or consumes, if you will) their previous Bo3. The intent of this is to prevent Bob from winning a Bo3 2-1 and leaving the complete tournament performance between Andy and Bob as a 3-3 "undecided". We now have have a Bo7 matchup between them that continues their original Bo3 and decides who goes on and who gets eliminated. Let's step outside the Andy/Bob head-to-head now and look at their complete tournament performance. We can say that the extended series is equivalent to Andy and Bob playing Bo3's against other players and one Bo7 against each other. Note that in this context, even though Andy and Bob are considered on equal footing by the tournament (winner of Bo7 goes on in LB, loser gets eliminated), we see that their tournament performance is NOT on equal footing. Andy is 2-1 in Bo3's and Bob is 5-0. This is HUGE. Andy's elimination condition is losing a Bo3 and a Bo7. Bob's is losing a single Bo7. Note that this is ALWAYS the case in extended series (finals excluded). This is not considering complete tournament performance. Extended series is a special case rule that trades bracket fairness for head-to-head matchup fairness. People need to ask themselves which is worse: that Andy gets eliminated by Bob despite going 3-3 against him (or in some cases 3-2 or 2-2), or that Bob and Andy are thrown into a Bo7 on equal footing despite that NOT being the case (Andy lost a Bo3, Bob did not)? Beyond this question I can argue no more. If people really think that head-to-head matchup fairness is THAT important, then I can't argue any more to convince them that extended series is bad. Personally I cannot see how people can be so worried about Andy's head-to-head score with Bob that they ignore and consider less important the fact that Andy has lost to someone else in a Bo3, Bob has not; then in addition they claim that extended series is in the interest of complete tournament performance of the players. | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
|
TheFinalWord
Australia790 Posts
On December 03 2010 13:29 dezholling wrote: Andy's elimination condition is losing a Bo3 and a Bo7. Bob's is losing a single Bo7. Note that this is ALWAYS the case in extended series (finals excluded). This is not considering complete tournament performance. Thats a very good point, doesn't seem fair to me. | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
If you lose 2-0 in the winner's bracket and play against a person who lost 2-1 in the winner's bracket, you're going to play a Bo5 where he starts with a one-game lead. I really think that this makes a lot more sense. Thoughts? | ||
|
wololo
Sweden10 Posts
| ||
|
Champi
1422 Posts
| ||
|
Tryhard
United States7 Posts
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Skrillex
Canada48 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 Being undecided has it place in a poll, if the new formula doesn't bother you that much then you are undecided. And there is 20% undecided at the moment, pretty significant | ||
|
Pehrfect
Sweden13 Posts
| ||
|
joowep
Australia4 Posts
Extended Series is double Punishment. Its like getting taxed twice. What makes it worse is that this double punishment is random. When you lose a game you get punished by getting knocked to the losers bracket. If you dont meet the person who knocked you down you only get that initial punishment. If you BY CHANCE meet the person again due to how the brackets fall you get punished twice. Anything that randomly punishes a competitor is bad. Extended series has no benefit. What extended series offers is already provided by the double elimination format The idea behind extended series is that it helps seemingly unfair eliminations giving you a buffer However you already get a buffer of 2 lives. No other tournament format gives this generous luxury. Anything that serves no purpose just complicates things and should be removed The only time the concept of an extended series is applicable is when the champion of the winners bracket faces the champion of the losers bracket. The champion of the winners bracket is the only person who has yet to lose a series and essentially still has a (non redeemable) get out of jail free card. The fact that they have faced before or not is irrelevant. Even still i would be hesitant convert that to any free games. Maybe they get to choose a map. Extended series is Bad, It randomly punishes people. It serves no benefit. In its current form it should be removed. | ||
|
pecore
Germany62 Posts
The only thing i could say against the extended series is that it might be unfair that some people meat people they played before again and others don't. Those who only play each opponent once in the tournament have kind of an advantage over those who have to play an extended series. | ||
|
KiLL_ORdeR
United States1518 Posts
| ||
|
CidO
United States695 Posts
Group play(128)-> 32 Player Bo3 ->16 Player Bo3 -> 8 player Bo3 -> Semi Bo5 -> Finals Bo7 No extended series. If someone plays the person again after group play in the bracket then it's like they never played them. Wow, i feel like i just cured cancer with that solution. I don't understand why MLG won't change it. The players obviously don't like it, and a good player in SC2 isn't on Straight Ripping and doesn't need a gimmie to not get upset by some unranked person. | ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
| ||
|
Nerski
United States1095 Posts
Thus just get rid of extended series and call it a day if you can beat a guy 2-0 you should have no problem doing it again or winning 2-1 later if you're truly the better player. | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
DTWolfwood
38 Posts
| ||
|
Goibon
New Zealand8185 Posts
I want each series to be treated completely independent, on their own merits, with both players on a level playing field. Extended series denies me as a viewer this opportunity, and thus kills the spectacle of it. Of course i'm completely biased as a potential paying customer. I have no idea how the players feel, so if my $10 or whatever (pretend MLG costs money to watch, or that i can actually buy hot pockets in my country) is less important than player welfare (which it probably should be) then i'll go with what the players want. I'm just some guy on the internet afterall. | ||
|
Monzterg
Sweden257 Posts
You brainsoups who say stuff like "Extended Series and Starcraft should not be mentioned in the same sentance.", thank you very much. However In this case I think MLG is making a misstake by using extended series as it actually does not make it more fair, nor more accurate. It could seem so at a first glance but I will do my best to explain to you why that is not the case. Using extended series makes it more likely that the player that actually holds the upper hand out of every single accidential player collision withing the lower bracket will advance and its easy to think that that's the main point of a bracket system. The main objective for a bracket is to as accuratly as possible determine who is the true theoretical champion in a playerpool (the best player.). The best player is whoever is a underdog to the least ammount of other players within the pool. Almost never is there going to be a player that holds a advantage in every possible player collision within a bracket. A field is going to have cycles like: A is a favorite over B who's a favorite over C who's a favorite over A. A > B > C > A... Sometimes extending a series if 2 players happens to have played eachother earlier in the tournament will sometimes skew the bracket and it will make it so that on average more runthroughs of the tournament is needed before the players true skill level can be read. It actually does not matter once in lower bracket if the couple of players that are colliding have collided earlier in the winner bracket and I will explain this to you now. Immagine a bracket thats filled with precentages instead of player names. When a bracket starts out everyone is given equal chances. So lets imagine a 64 player bracket filled with precentages instead of playernames. In the first round every player in the bracket has a 1.5625% chance of beeing the true champion of the playerpool. Now imagine as players start playing, these precentages will climb down the bracket. Now lets pick a point in the bracket! Lets follow player A! Player A wins two rounds in the Winnersbracket and his precentage of beeing the champion has started climbing. His precentages will always climb with the same ammount in every tournament runthrough because his opponents will always have started with the same precentage and have had the same round throughout the tournament. Now imagine player A was beaten down to the Losersbracket from his opponent in Winners round 3. Player A now finds himself in the Losersbracket with a precentage of X. X will at this point always be the same number every time a player advances to this possition in the tournamen and every player that lost in Winners round 3 will find themselfs in Losers with exactly the same precentages. Their opponents in Losers will always have a very consistant precentage also, this can vary by a extremly astronomically small irrelevant ammount so I am going to discount that small variation because it is not relevant for the point im trying to prove. The irrelevant variation in the Losers bracket is going to be something like ~0.001%, and it is capped so it can never be relevant. Now see the brackets in front of you and realize why would it matter if on accident there was the same player behind one of those precentages playing eachother twice, or two different players? Realize that their precentages is always going to be the same and so their chances of advancing in the Losersbracket should not sometimes be drastically decreased because they accidentially got paired earlier in Winnersbracket. If you do this you will skew the precentages and make the bracket more inaccurate and unfair. The winner of the bracket would always end up with a smaller precentage as the champion and that means that the bracket would require more runthroughs to determine a champion with any certainty. Thanks, I hope this helps and if you want to question or have something clarified about this then ill be happy to further and more detailed explain in a private message. EDIT: Also about the argument that Tyler brought up on SotG. He had this argument that it would be more fair with extended series because of the chances of first beating a player 2-0 in the Winnersbracket and then Losing 1-2 later in Losersbracket and be eliminated with a total score of leading 3-2 against the player that eliminated you. The downfall of this argument is this: He is basically arguing that any player that you hold the upper hand against in a individual collision within the bracket can never be the champion. I think a better way to look at a situation where two players who played round 1 Winnersbracket where player A beat B 2-0 would be to say that Player B lost WB round 1 to random player with 1.5625% chances of beeing the champion while player A did beat a random player with 1.5625% of beeing the champion that same round and it doesnt matter if theyactually played eachother or other players with those precentages. | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On December 02 2010 18:07 SlapMySalami wrote: 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? Of course. He already won once. Why wouldn't that count for much of note? I think it's a very good and sensible rule. | ||
|
Monzterg
Sweden257 Posts
On December 04 2010 11:47 enzym wrote: Of course. He already won once. Why wouldn't that count for much of note? I think it's a very good and sensible rule. Then everyone who comes from the winnerbracket gets to start 2-0 in a best of 7 against whoever is advancing in the lower bracket? Or only if they played before? Why does that matter? Think about what you're saying. German fish. | ||
|
DaProfessor
United States11 Posts
On December 03 2010 09:27 crms wrote: Someone can correct me if i'm wrong but my understanding (as a former LAN FPS player CPL 3rd wut wut!) that HALO and other FPS games compete on a LEVEL playing field. You either out play, out think, out whatever your opponent or you don't. The team that played better will win and the better team is MORE likely to win at a much higher rate. In my previous FPS experience (team fortress classic) we held a 90%+ winrate because we were simply the better players congregated into 1 team. Now Starcraft is such a highly variable game. First, maps make a HUGE difference, getting a bad map pool for your race automatically puts you at a disadvantage. This disadvantage usually isn't insurmountable but it can be significant. This doesn't exist in (most) competitive FPS games. Not to mention how many different ways you can play SC2, build orders, cheeses, different races, etc. and the competition level at the tip top. Anyone in the top50 best players in the country can take a game or series off of one another. The best players in BW of all time have what 72% win? An insanely good gosu as fuck player may win 60% just six out of 10 games and that would make you a fucking baller. I'd wager the #50 Halo has essentially 0 chance to pull a series off the #1 Halo team. In my experience in a top FPS team I don't think we lost to anyone outside the top5 or so. I see the argument about variables in SC, but shouldn't steps be taken to help prevent this? I realize the game is young but maybe a map pool that is more "fair" for all the races would help eliminate some of that. This is even more true when the players are so close in skill. If it's a bad map for your race and you play someone you are a lot better than well then you probably win anyways, but someone close to you almost gets a guaranteed win. All of the other variables are player generated and the nature of SC being more complex than most FPS. But I feel like map variability, at least eventually, should be far less of an issue, or at least steps should be taken to make it that way. And yes only about the top 8-10 Halo teams are on a similar level, no one outside the top even 5 could take a series off #1. As far as the rule goes, I see arguments for both sides. I don't like how a player can be winning against another player in total games and be out, and the fact that the order itself could determine who goes home bothers me. I feel like this removes some variability in that instance. On the other hand, both players lost a series to get there, the only difference being the player that won didn't have to go through numerous rounds in losers, which in itself can be an advantage. I still don't see it as arbitrarily giving them a lead though, they already played and had a result. I'm really on the fence about it. I think the rule can go, but other rules put in place. One would be to never play the same map twice, don't know if this is already done, I would think it is though. Whatever maps they played the first time should be taken out the next time through. Also for the winner of the winners' bracket, there shouldn't be an advantage given to them in games won, just require the player from the losers' brackets to beat them in 2 Bo3s in order to win the tournament. (this is what is done already in MLG if the players meeting in the grand final haven't played yet) | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On December 02 2010 23:52 Malloy wrote: A lot of people argue that the extended series adds an advantage on the person that won the original best of 3, but in actuallity, not doing the extended series adds an advantage on the person that lost the original best of 3. 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. Okay. Chill's example again: Suppose Y suddenly loses twice and X wins the rest of the tournament coming up from losers bracket into grand finals, then wins 2 sets against the winner bracket finalist. Are you still saying Y is better than X? Should Y then play X because he beat X earlier so X can prove he's better than Y? No, you don't. You don't need to prove you're better than another person to show you're the champion. You just have to WIN. Also, because of this rule, X might have to play an extra 2 games for NO REASON. If he doesn't ever meet Y again, he doesn't need to win 4 games, he only needs to win 2 a series. 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). No. He's proven that he's better than Y when the moment counted. If X and Y meet in every other tournament and Y has beaten X and Y beats X, but the two meet in the grand finals, should they play a super-duper-ultra-extraordinary extended series of best-of-57 with X needing to win 25 to prove he is INDEED the better player? No. He shouldn't. Conclusion; extended series removes an unfair advatage that is gained by the loser of the first round. There never was an advantage gained by the loser. The loser has to play more games. They start on EVEN grounds when they play their new set. It's not an unfair advantage that the later series are worth more, that's just how tournaments work. Otherwise, we'd have a round robin, not an elimination tournament. Grand finals is worth more than a pools set, like it or not. Just like a series in the loser series at a later time for all the marbles is worth more than an earlier set in the winners series. It's not an unfair advantage if they start even; in fact, it's fair. | ||
|
samuraibael
Australia294 Posts
| ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On December 04 2010 14:50 samuraibael wrote: Nony put it best when he said would you rather a best of 7 or two best of 3s to determine who is better between two players? Obviously the best of 7 which is what extended series delivers. Why does it matter? Who cares about who has the better record between two players? We care about who can win when the moment matters. Once again, if A beats B, but A loses twice and B wins the whole thing, should we them make B play A once again to see who's the better of the two players? No. We KNOW B is the better player because he won. Their personal records don't matter at all. If we cared about that kinda crap, we'd be having endless loops. Furthermore, the best of 7 brings a contradiction once again: If it's an "extended series," then shouldn't player B be back in the winners bracket again if he wins? | ||
|
Monzterg
Sweden257 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 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. I love that MLG is trying to make their tournaments as good, fair and entertaining as possible and completly ignore the norms and doing stuff one way for no other reason that its been done that way for a long time by other people. Super good! However! In this case I dont agree with the extended series. And I will actually argue for theory that suggests that it is unfair, missguided and makes a champion less legit. The main problem with the philosophy you're using if you're arguing for extended series is that it assumes that the best player in a field is a favorite over any other player within the field and that's simply not true. The best player out of a field is going to be the player that wins most consistantly within the playerpool. Genereally the best player out of a field is going to be the player that is a underdog to the least ammount of other players within the field. Almost never are you going to have a champion that's a favorite against all of the players in the field. There are going to be cycles like A > B > C > A especially within Starcraft because of the different matchups. I want you to imagine a bracket of 64 players. Now replace all the playernames with a precentage that would represent the chances of player to be the true teoretical champion within the playerpool. For a 64 player bracket this would leave all players with 1.5625% chance of beeing the champion before any games are played. As games are starting to get played you will see these precentages increase and decrease depending on how they do against their opponents. Lets follow player A in this example that will prove a few points. Player A beats two players in WB before he is beaten in WB round 3 and knocked down to LB. Now once in LB he is going to have X% chance of beeing the champion. X is always going to be the same number in this possition and the same holds true for any slot in the bracket. Now you can realize that what changes your precentage is dependant on if you win or lose, and what precentage you and you're opponent is holding. Let's call the player that Player A beat in WB round 1, Player B. Now imagine Player B fights his way through LB and gets to player against Player A again when he got knocked down by losing to another player in WB round 3. Now based on WB round 1 results where Player A beat Player B 2-0, MLG would extend that series to a best of 7 starting at 2-0 in favor for Player A. In WB round 1 actually. Player A beat random opponent with 1.5625% of beeing the true champion in theory. Player B lost to random opponent with 1.5625% of beeing the true champion in theory. So why would you extend series ONLY if the actuall player behind the precentages happens to be the same? Why wouldn't any WB round 1 winner be granted a advantage against any WB round 1 loser once in LB? The truth is that the actuall player behind the precentage does not matter. And the harm you're doing by using extended series is that you are enchancing individuall player collisions and making each runthrough of the bracket more dependant on random factors. If you use extended series you would actually need many more runthroughs of a bracket in order to be able to determine players true skill. The champion of you'r bracket will end up with a smaller precentage of beeing the true champion. Hopefully this does shed some light and if you have any questions regarding the theory behind this please send me a private message, I would be happy to explain deeper and more detailed should it be neccessary. Last but not least I would like to say that MLG for sure has to be the best organisation we could ever have. Sure nothing starts off perfect but it's the potential that is important and it's so great that this organisation have people reading this stuff that we're discussing and actually cares and respects the viewers and players oppinions. We couldnt have a better thing happen to the Starcraft 2 scene then having MLG pick up this game. Cheers MLG! | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
Bidouleroux
Canada24 Posts
On December 04 2010 16:09 ghrur wrote: Why does it matter? Who cares about who has the better record between two players? We care about who can win when the moment matters. Once again, if A beats B, but A loses twice and B wins the whole thing, should we them make B play A once again to see who's the better of the two players? No. We KNOW B is the better player because he won. Their personal records don't matter at all. If we cared about that kinda crap, we'd be having endless loops. Furthermore, the best of 7 brings a contradiction once again: If it's an "extended series," then shouldn't player B be back in the winners bracket again if he wins? What Tyler is saying, if I'm not mistaken, is that by playing two best-of-3 instead of an extended best-of-7 you run the risk of having a tie in the number of series won. For example, player A beats player B in winner's bracket. Then, sometime later in loser's bracket player B beats player A. If this was two best-of-3 this means both player B and player A won once and we don't know who's really the better player. How can we then say that player B should advance because he won the second best-of-3? It makes no sense, because while player A also dropped to the loser's bracket, he was dropped by a better opponent further along in the winner's bracket (at least statistically it will be so almost every time). Thus player B, having been dropper earlier is by definition the worst player of the two right now. Therefore player B must prove that he is indeed better than player A and that the first games in which he lost did not reflect his actual, average (or "normal") skill level. It's the same reason Blizzard uses a hidden ranking to match you on the ladder and not your actual ranking. The actual ranking is your average skill level, the hidden ranking is your skill level now. If you keep playing at your hidden ranking's skill level, your actual ranking will move up or down consequently. Any match-making system that uses past performance to choose your next opponent will have that kind of hidden ranking somewhere in the math. In the MLG, the extended series rule comes as a way to take into account this "hidden ranking" that comes from having both a winner and a loser's bracket. For comparison, in other sports that do not use double elimination, the highest ranking (or seed) at the end of the regular season gives you the chance to play the worst team first plus have home advantage. Home advantage then goes to the team that can win over their opponent faster, thus showing that their hidden ranking is higher (if the winning team was the lower seed) or at least as good as their actual ranking (if the winning team was the higher seed). The home advantage is admittedly not great, but as this is not double elimination and there is no way for a team to play two series against each other, it does not matter much. On the other hand, playing the worst team first is extremely advantageous of course, but inasmuch as we do not want (or cannot because not all players are ranked yet) to systematically play higher seeds against lower seeds in Starcraft tournaments, the double elimination format with extended series is better. Plus, to actually give the home advantage to the better player in single elimination, you would need to give the first map choice to the player who won his series in less games so far, if equal then to the highest seed. But again, home advantage is a poor substitute I think and plays too much to map imbalances instead of simply giving a comfortable playing atmosphere like in other sports (since the playing field is always the same). So either play the best seeds against the worst seeds, when MLG begins to have a rank for every player, and change to single elimination or keep random seeds and double elimination if rankings are too volatile would seem the best options. | ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
| ||
|
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
On December 01 2010 15:14 Phraxas wrote: The extended series is bollocks. InControl: "I will f*ing smash you in an arm wrestle. Does that mean that the next time we play I need a small child punching you in the crotch whilst we have a rematch?" Best quote of the podcast  | ||
|
gaheris
Ireland12 Posts
| ||
|
Spidinko
Slovakia1174 Posts
I can't vote because I don't care whether they have this rule or not but I'm undecided =) It's sort of rule that some people like, some don't. But the rule itself is just. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=168345 Granted he cannot account for everything in his models, such as if player skill is transitive, or the psychological effects of the rule and tournament setting, I think he does a very good job at providing an analysis of the rule. The results and conclusion for those who are too lazy to read the thread: + Show Spoiler + 4.4 EFFECT OF EXTENDED SERIES We now consider the effect of the extended series in isolation. Specifically, how often is the extended series used, and how often does is "correct an injustice" from the winners' bracket? In this case, we consider a 64-player tournament in double elimination with extended series format. In a standard double-elimination format, 127 matches will be played. Simulation shows that, on average, 18.8 extended series will be played in a 64-player tournament. This means that 15% of matches, on average, will be rematches of players. Similarly, of these 18.8 matches, 3.03 of them will result in "corrections". A correction is when the better player loses in the winners' bracket and wins the extended series to continue in the tournament. In 2.17 of the matches, the worse player won in the winners' bracket and won the extended series, meaning the extended series failed to "correct" the result from the winners' bracket. The worst possible outcome is when the better play wins in the winners' bracket and loses the extended series. The extended series does well here, only introducing 0.55 such results per tournament, or 4% of the extended series. Considering the disadvantage that the better player has when entering the extended series, it does surprisingly well at correcting these results, succeeding 58% of the time. At the same time, it only introduces bad results 4% of the time. I am tempted to conlude that extended series is successful at letting the better player continue in the tournament, however data is missing to compare against a standard double elimination tournament. A good area of extension for this study would be measuring the outcome if a regular best-of-three were done, and comparing its correction/injustice rate to the extended series. The ratio from the extended series (58%/4%) seems pretty hard to beat -- I would expect a best-of-three to allow the better play to proceed more often, but have a much higher injustice rate. 5. CONCLUSION Whe considering individual matches, the extended series appears to perform well to make sure the better player continues in the tournament. In this sense, it fulfills its purpose. But when looking at the larger picture, it appears that the extended series has little effect on the outcome. While the extended series rule does slightly improve outcomes, these differences are not particularly significant compared to the overall double elimination format. What is clear from these results is that both elimination formats leave much to be desired when compared to a round robin tournament. Although round-robin is impractical due its large number of games, other tournament formats such as swiss-style or those with rounds play deserve further consideration. Basically, based upon his player models, the MLG Extended Series rule has the most probability besides a Round Robin of letting the "best" player win, as well as letting the "best" player advance when they meet again and must play an Extended Series. However, the difference of who wins the entire tournament between it and a normal double elimination tournament is very small, as to not really effect the results of the tournament at all. So basically, the extended series slightly improves the outcome of the tournament, but not to such a great extent. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On December 04 2010 17:56 Bidouleroux wrote: What Tyler is saying, if I'm not mistaken, is that by playing two best-of-3 instead of an extended best-of-7 you run the risk of having a tie in the number of series won. For example, player A beats player B in winner's bracket. Then, sometime later in loser's bracket player B beats player A. If this was two best-of-3 this means both player B and player A won once and we don't know who's really the better player. How can we then say that player B should advance because he won the second best-of-3? It makes no sense, because while player A also dropped to the loser's bracket, he was dropped by a better opponent further along in the winner's bracket (at least statistically it will be so almost every time). Thus player B, having been dropper earlier is by definition the worst player of the two right now. Therefore player B must prove that he is indeed better than player A and that the first games in which he lost did not reflect his actual, average (or "normal") skill level. Why doesn't it make sense? The second series mattered more. Round of 8 matters more than round of 64. Grand finals matter more than Round of 8. What's wrong with that? The later the rounds, the more they matter. That's how a tournament works. Otherwise, how can we say the winner is indeed the winner of a tournament if he drops a series along the way? Because his later matches mattered more. Furthermore, this is saying we should take history into account. The problem is, we don't, or else we'd take all previous head to heads, and make them play an extended series throughout all MLG tournaments. But we don't care about that crap. Why should we? It's about who's better at the moment. The fact of the matter is, B won when it mattered more. If A were better, he would've won at that moment. Here's another way to look at it. Flash vs Jaehoon okay? Let's suppose Jaehoon is a practice bonjwa. He can go 20-15 vs Flash in Practice. His "hidden skill" is better. But guess what? When he gets out on stage, there's no DOUBT that Flash will crush him. If they play an OSL series and flash wins 2-0, they're only 20-17. Do we care? No. Flash won when it counted. He was indisputably better at that moment. Who cares about the past? It's the same reason Blizzard uses a hidden ranking to match you on the ladder and not your actual ranking. The actual ranking is your average skill level, the hidden ranking is your skill level now. If you keep playing at your hidden ranking's skill level, your actual ranking will move up or down consequently. Any match-making system that uses past performance to choose your next opponent will have that kind of hidden ranking somewhere in the math. In the MLG, the extended series rule comes as a way to take into account this "hidden ranking" that comes from having both a winner and a loser's bracket. I have no idea this happened, and I think this is idiotic for tournaments. There shouldn't be any "hidden rankings" stuff. Tournaments aren't about the past once seeding is done. They're about the moment. Who's the best player at the moment? For comparison, in other sports that do not use double elimination, the highest ranking (or seed) at the end of the regular season gives you the chance to play the worst team first plus have home advantage. Home advantage then goes to the team that can win over their opponent faster, thus showing that their hidden ranking is higher (if the winning team was the lower seed) or at least as good as their actual ranking (if the winning team was the higher seed). The home advantage is admittedly not great, but as this is not double elimination and there is no way for a team to play two series against each other, it does not matter much. On the other hand, playing the worst team first is extremely advantageous of course, but inasmuch as we do not want (or cannot because not all players are ranked yet) to systematically play higher seeds against lower seeds in Starcraft tournaments, the double elimination format with extended series is better. Plus, to actually give the home advantage to the better player in single elimination, you would need to give the first map choice to the player who won his series in less games so far, if equal then to the highest seed. But again, home advantage is a poor substitute I think and plays too much to map imbalances instead of simply giving a comfortable playing atmosphere like in other sports (since the playing field is always the same). So either play the best seeds against the worst seeds, when MLG begins to have a rank for every player, and change to single elimination or keep random seeds and double elimination if rankings are too volatile would seem the best options. What? Starcraft DOES use seeding. They obviously place like unknowns vs Jinro first rather than go oh, Jinro vs Ret, then Jinro vs. Select or something. No, that doesn't happen. Starcraft seeds, better players get an advantage, that should be it. In NFL games, you didn't see NE start off 1-0 vs the Giants in a best of 3 for the superbowl do you? You don't see the Lakers start off like, 4-1 vs the Mavericks do you? No, it's all about the moment. Also, no one has answered the point about the loser winning an extended series should be placed back into the winners bracket again. CONTRADICTIONNNNNNNNNNN | ||
|
FiveAlarm
United States57 Posts
| ||
|
jax1492
United States1632 Posts
| ||
|
Spidinko
Slovakia1174 Posts
Still, it basically looks like a rule that barely influences the tournament outcame (in a good way) but doesn't account for 'people factor' (ppl feel something is wrong with this rule but can't objectively say what is and why). The question is, is it worth the trouble? Slight help vs angry mob  | ||
|
holyone
Portugal43 Posts
All the rest is stupid and doesnt deserve any more words for it! | ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
If A wins 2-0 first, and then loses 1-2 later, he is has beaten B 3 times to 2, but because of the order the games were played in, he is out, while B moves on. I fail to see how player B is punished a second time under extended series, it just gets rid of the imbalance caused by the arbitrary order of the games they played. This is the inherent flaw in doing a double elimination tourney (without extended series) rather than a single elimination tourney, the order the games are played in matters in determining which of two players advances. | ||
| ||
