|
On June 24 2013 11:20 Deckard.666 wrote:
Everyone is going to disapprove w/o knowing it doesn't affect the finals.
I really don't know how can people hate that rule so much when the only thing it does is bring fairness for the players.
Extended series is the complete opposite of fairness. And it doesn't matter that it doesn't affect the finals anymore, it still affects the tournament and it's still bad.
|
In the past a lot of matches don't happen on stream, so sometimes we don't get to see why someone starts Finals ahead 2-0.
I don't think it's a problem if every match of the tournament is streamed.
I still think allowing any player a 2-0 headstart is too much, it kills the momentum of the Finals by starting it halfway through.
Allowing a 1-0 headstart is understandable.. but 2-0? Come on. It sucks when the Finals consist of just 2 games.
Extended Series should see more 2 game Finals than 5-7 game Finals.
This is because if a player easily beats another early on, and that player comes back to make it to the Finals, it is more likely the deficit will be too much if a player down 0-2. Compared to a Bo7, a comeback win is near impossible, as the 2-0 player just has to win two games.
I vowed to never watch a Finals where a player starts up 2-0 again, I remember how lame the last one was.
I am not sure why MLG insists on a rule that the majority agrees takes the fun out of the Finals.
Not only is it not fair to suck the momentum out of a player who is trying to make a comeback, but there is no example of this rule being used anywhere in a legitimate StarCraft tournament besides MLG from my memory.
Even the old IPL double-Bo5 was more preferable.
First no more Open bracket, now back to Extended Series for what seems like no real reason.
This lack of consistency and direction is making me care much less about MLG by the day.
Good thing Blizzard stepped it up with WCS, and brought NASL back in the picture.
At least it's still a real tournament.
|
Extended series: bad. Don't do it. It's like pissing on the floor in your kitchen. Don't do it. It's gross and bad.
|
I dislike the extended series because it brings a "memory" to the format that isn't helpful. A handful of players make it to an advanced round, only one of them is 2-0 and another one is 0-2 before the round even started because they happened to have been matched up against each other instead of against someone else... it's convoluted and silly.
EDIT: Another way of seeing this would be: The player who won 2-0 earlier on was already rewarded for that victory, in the round where he won. With extended series, wins/losses in the early rounds may (or may not, depending on who you're matched up against later on) count as wins/losses for later rounds as well... which is another way of reaching the conclusion that extended series is convoluted and silly.
|
Not sure why they would bring it back after they had finally nailed it with the right format in one of their last MLGs
|
Sometimes they are great, sometimes they are just confusing as all get out. It'd be nice if the system could be cleaned up a little or replaced with something that has a similar idea/motivation but goes about it in a different way.
|
The extended series made MLG special. I'm a greedy spectator and I like the reintroduction.
|
It' 100% bad, and it's embarrasing that they still use it
|
On June 25 2013 00:50 LoKi- wrote:
It's interesting that this is so polarized. I personally don't mind it (I like it, really, but I don't feel too strongly either way). Could somebody please provide me with an argument against it, other than "it's unfair?" Because it seems to me that it's completely fair to retain the previous Bo3's standings when the same players meet again - it encourages solid play throughout the entire Bo3 because even losing 2-1 is better than losing 2-0. It also seems to add some excitement/story to the games when you can tell so clearly that these two players have met before in this tournament, and it actually matters fairly significantly.
it's arbitrary, because whether you run into the same person or someone you have no history with is mostly based on luck.
it's unfair, because even if that person did beat you, you have both lost the same number of times (or otherwise placed at the same rank) to be where you are. so you should be on even footing.
it leads to anticlimatic games. and also some very stupid moments where casters try to unravel the tortured logic of how the finals works for the audience.
it amazes me that these same arguments get rehashed every fucking time extended series gets brought up and there are still fuckwits at mlg who assume that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't understand extended series.
|
Baltimore, USA22261 Posts
I'm surprised this poll is as close as it is.
|
extended series was terrible because of how the loser bracket system worked (this is why it made such terrible finals)
if 2 players meet at a later stage of the tournament, when both won X games and lost Y, they should have an equal chance to advance.
individual scores against each other should only serve as a tiebreak.
(why aren't there any round robin or swiss tournaments?  it would be nice, especially in WCS qualifiers, it would add much needed consistency)
|
Totally think this is fair. If i already beat a player in a bo3 and have to vs him again later on just to get cheesed twice or some cheesy strat and lose is completely unfair. I think I should have a little advantage over the other player.
|
On June 26 2013 18:16 xtyxtbx wrote:
Totally think this is fair. If i already beat a player in a bo3 and have to vs him again later on just to get cheesed twice or some cheesy strat and lose is completely unfair. I think I should have a little advantage over the other player.
What strat used is irrelevant; what if the first winner got his 2 wins from cheesing twice, does it make it unfair?
Also, I don't think anyone is saying extended series is unfair at a final; the player coming from winner's bracket should get an advantage because he has not lost a single series yet in the tournament while the player from the loser bracket has, so the first player to lose TWICE in the tournament should be the first one out (hence the name double elimination).
It is unfair however, at any other point of the bracket; Say player A beat player B in the winner's bracket; and later, player A faces player B again in loser's (not at the grand final). In order for this to happen, player A MUST at some point lost to another player in the winner's bracket, while player B beat every player since his lost against player A.
At this point when they meet again, both player A and player B have lost ONE series in the entire tournament and both have arrived at the exact same point in the tournament; this by definition of a tournament, means both players have performed equally well. It makes no sense then, from the interest of fairness, to give player A 1-2 games advantage.
|
On June 26 2013 18:57 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:16 xtyxtbx wrote:
Totally think this is fair. If i already beat a player in a bo3 and have to vs him again later on just to get cheesed twice or some cheesy strat and lose is completely unfair. I think I should have a little advantage over the other player. What strat used is irrelevant; what if the first winner got his 2 wins from cheesing twice, does it make it unfair? Also, I don't think anyone is saying extended series is unfair at a final; the player coming from winner's bracket should get an advantage because he has not lost a single series yet in the tournament while the player from the loser bracket has, so the first player to lose TWICE in the tournament should be the first one out (hence the name double elimination). It is unfair however, at any other point of the bracket; Say player A beat player B in the winner's bracket; and later, player A faces player B again in loser's (not at the grand final). In order for this to happen, player A MUST at some point lost to another player in the winner's bracket, while player B beat every player since his lost against player A. At this point when they meet again, both player A and player B have lost ONE series in the entire tournament and both have arrived at the exact same point in the tournament; this by definition of a tournament, means both players have performed equally well. It makes no sense then, from the interest of fairness, to give player A 1-2 games advantage.
This logic is flawed. Player A has gone on longer without losing than player B, since he knocked him in the lower bracket. Also, the extended series ensures that player B does not advance over player A with a losing map score. If in the upper bracket player A won 2-0 and in the lower bracket player B won 2-1, this means that player B went 2-3 against player A and still would advance over player A, which is not fair at all.
I am not saying that extended series is an awesome idea, but the reason behind it is definitely logical and it does not deserve the shit it gets at all.
|
Are they still doing the double bracket thing to avoid it in the grand finals? That was the only issue I think, in the regular brackets it's fine.
|
On June 26 2013 20:21 Slunk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:57 Fubi wrote:On June 26 2013 18:16 xtyxtbx wrote:
Totally think this is fair. If i already beat a player in a bo3 and have to vs him again later on just to get cheesed twice or some cheesy strat and lose is completely unfair. I think I should have a little advantage over the other player. What strat used is irrelevant; what if the first winner got his 2 wins from cheesing twice, does it make it unfair? Also, I don't think anyone is saying extended series is unfair at a final; the player coming from winner's bracket should get an advantage because he has not lost a single series yet in the tournament while the player from the loser bracket has, so the first player to lose TWICE in the tournament should be the first one out (hence the name double elimination). It is unfair however, at any other point of the bracket; Say player A beat player B in the winner's bracket; and later, player A faces player B again in loser's (not at the grand final). In order for this to happen, player A MUST at some point lost to another player in the winner's bracket, while player B beat every player since his lost against player A. At this point when they meet again, both player A and player B have lost ONE series in the entire tournament and both have arrived at the exact same point in the tournament; this by definition of a tournament, means both players have performed equally well. It makes no sense then, from the interest of fairness, to give player A 1-2 games advantage. This logic is flawed. Player A has gone on longer without losing than player B, since he knocked him in the lower bracket. Also, the extended series ensures that player B does not advance over player A with a losing map score. If in the upper bracket player A won 2-0 and in the lower bracket player B won 2-1, this means that player B went 2-3 against player A and still would advance over player A, which is not fair at all. I am not saying that extended series is an awesome idea, but the reason behind it is definitely logical and it does not deserve the shit it gets at all.
The problem has never been whether it's fair or not (it clearly is "fair" since everyone is given the rule). The reason people hate it is how annoying it is to watch your favorite player X gets knocked down by Y. Now you need to not just hope X wins, but you also have to hope that he doesn't run into Y again throughout the tournament. Because it is so unlikely for someone to beat someone 4-1 or 3-1 (which is what is required after getting knocked down). So X has a great shot at getting to the finals, ONLY IF he does not run back through Y. I hate it because it complicates things so much with who I want to win, because if MC loses in this round, then he will drop down to the bracket demuslim is in (and he beat demuslim earlier), so now I need to hope MC wins this round, but lose next round, or he has to win the round after that but then lose the following round.
Or what I also find really really stupid, is suppose you have Z playing the winner of X and Y. Suppose Z already beat X. Now if X beats Y, Z gets a free ride to the next round. However, if Y beats X, then Z actually has to play a game. It's just so strange for Z to be benefited so much by someone else winning. If one person wins, he starts up 2-0, if the other wins it starts at 0-0. Really dumb.
|
Double elimination is a bad format to begin with. It's not used in real sports except for the college world series
+ Show Spoiler +
and then it's used in a Bo1 format, where if you lose 2 Bo1s you are out. In MLG you can lose like 16 individual matches and win because all that matters is Bo3s. The alternative of extended series is to have 2 Bo3s, where one player can win the first Bo3 2-0 and lose the second Bo3 1-2 and get eliminated despite being 3-2 overall. So double elimination doesn't work in a format that's more than best of 1. Extended series "fixes" things by making it so you can only be eliminated by someone who has a positive head-to-head record with you, but then it's not really double elimination, as you can end up losing 3 or more best of 3's and still win the tournament.
Basically double elim doesn't work with or without extended series, and big open brackets like MLG should use a Swiss system.
|
why the hell would you put a "don't know/don't care" option? if you don't know/don't care, you obviously don't vote
|
The extended series doesn't make sense for game played later on in the tournament (Quarter,Semis). The skill pool of the tournament is already fairly low with the exception being the Kespa players and a few of the koreans (HerO and Jaedong) and I for one won't be tuning in at least until the quarters since I'm not really interested in foreigners and low tier koreans playing each other. That being the case why would you potentially cheapen the Quarters and Semis by reducing the amount of games played? In a scenario where someone from the loser's has to win 2 BO3s you're guaranteed at least 2 games (winner wins first BO3 2-0) where as with extended series you could potentially just get one game.
|
I don't really see any issue with it.
Sure there are going to be some issues in a few cases where whats his face is pissed about a certain issue, but all in all i don't think it really affects the tourney that much.
And even if it does in some peoples opinion, I feel it is not the basis for boycotting/not watching the entire tourney....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
