EPTI'm so important
What do you think about the return of Extended Series at M…
| Forum Index > Polls & Liquibet |
|
Antylamon
United States1980 Posts
I'm so important | ||
|
Verator
United States220 Posts
| ||
|
Nuclease
United States1044 Posts
This is why I will not really be watching MLG anymore. Thanks for making my decision easy, Sundance and crew. | ||
|
Deckard.666
150 Posts
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. | ||
banjoetheredskin
United States743 Posts
| ||
|
MajuGarzett
Canada618 Posts
On June 24 2013 12:00 banjoetheredskin wrote: Would someone be kind enough to explain how this extended series works? If two players face each other in the tournament any future encounters between those two players is a best of five starting with the result of the first best of three instead of a regular best of three. | ||
|
Buddy168
United States156 Posts
But not extended series. | ||
|
QCD
Suriname81 Posts
On June 24 2013 11:13 Nuclease wrote: It's like the best of one in OSL. Extended series have been proven time and time again to degrade the quality, integrity, and excitement of tournaments, yet MLG brings them back. This is why I will not really be watching MLG anymore. Thanks for making my decision easy, Sundance and crew. So you're going to completely miss out on MLG because of a bracket style you disagree with? Doubtful, nice bluff however. I think if they're going to do this it should be bo7. | ||
|
Azelja
Japan622 Posts
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. That's highly debated and I don't see the "fairness" in the rule at all, but that's for a different thread. Yes, I know it doesn't affect the finals, still voted for disapprove because the system's bullshit, imo. | ||
|
Tyrran
France652 Posts
 Seriously. | ||
|
Headnoob
Australia1964 Posts
| ||
|
Psychonian
United States2297 Posts
| ||
|
figq
11850 Posts
| ||
|
Greendotz
United Kingdom2041 Posts
| ||
|
LoKi-
United States120 Posts
| ||
|
Ichabod
United States1657 Posts
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. The argument I frequently hear is that it reduces the level of excitement if it happens in the finals. The finals all of a sudden become slightly less decisive just because the players met in round 1 or something. It is my understanding that the MLG Anaheim bracket will be two 64-man brackets, so an extended series cannot occur in the finals. I am not that opposed to it, but it seems slightly odd for MLG to be so ardently stubborn about it, even though they phased it out of their other games (It hasn't been in their MOBA titles, and I don't think it is in CoD, but I could be wrong on that count.) It is a little bit irritating that MLG doesn't simply state its rationale for extended series, some explanation would undoubtedly be preferable to "blame John Nelson." I think there was a thread a while ago where someone analyzed the statistical effect that extended series has on a bracket. I believe his simulations resulted in the agent with the greatest chance to win, winning more often than without extended series. + Show Spoiler + Something like this: 60-40 players A and B. 36% chance that A wins 2-0, 28.8% that A wins 2-1, 19.2% chance that B wins 2-1, 16% chance that B wins 2-0 | ||
|
DavoS
United States1909 Posts
| ||
|
a9arnn
United States1533 Posts
| ||
|
ValhallaDude
United States23 Posts
If a player beats another player earlier on in the tournament and goes on to win all matches and he faces that player again in the finals, why would it not be an extended series? Why does the player who wins get a double jeopardy and the player who loses get a second chance? We don't try people for the same crime twice. This should be no different. | ||
|
Boucot
France15997 Posts
| ||
|
vrok
Sweden2537 Posts
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. | ||
|
frostalgia
United States178 Posts
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. | ||
|
laerteis
United States77 Posts
| ||
|
Zato-1
Chile2937 Posts
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. | ||
|
7mk
Germany10150 Posts
| ||
|
Elucidate
152 Posts
| ||
Hermanoid
Sweden167 Posts
| ||
|
Schandro
54 Posts
| ||
|
renlynn
United States276 Posts
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. | ||
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA21788 Posts
| ||
|
mihajovics
179 Posts
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) | ||
|
xtyxtbx
United States51 Posts
| ||
|
Fubi
2180 Posts
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. | ||
|
Slunk
Germany767 Posts
On June 26 2013 18:57 Fubi wrote: 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. | ||
|
seaofsaturn
United States486 Posts
| ||
|
convention
United States542 Posts
On June 26 2013 20:21 Slunk wrote: 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. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8122 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + 109, fuck yeah 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. | ||
|
letmegopls
105 Posts
| ||
|
Jaded.
United States113 Posts
| ||
|
MaxField
United States2385 Posts
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.... | ||
|
Tanngrisnir
Sweden126 Posts
Im not pulling this out of my ass and saying this based on some asumptions im personally making. This statement is based on mathematics and advanced theory that I am not going to post as a comment here. Ill tell you the conclusion and basics of it is this: Consider every starting-slot in a double elemination bracket occupied by a precentage instead of a player. The combined precentages of all players will be 100% so the starting precentage for every single bracketslot will be 100/<numberofslots> since we are not considering any games outside of our own bracket, nor having seeds etc this is how it will be. Now the precentage represents a players chance of beeing the best player within the field. (Assuming this is what we are trying to determine with our bracket, and the more accurate we determine this the better our bracket system is.). Now imaging these precentages playing eachother and advancing in the bracket. The numbers will drop and rise as they progress into the bracket depending on their results. How do we determine how effective our bracket is at finding the best player within a field of players? By the precentage that the Winner of the bracket ends up with. If we had a system that would give every eliminated player a precentage of 0% and the Winner of the bracket 100% then this would be the perfect bracketsystem. This does not exists! However, I can tell you that the double elemination bracket with extended-series system would produce a significantly lower precentage in the Winner-slot then a normal double elimination bracket would. Wich to me indicates that extended series doesn't make sense for a bracket with the purpose to determine the best player within a field as accurate as possible to use extended series. Lets look at some logistics using the same precentag-bracketmap as you imagined previously. Now I will use a slot deep in the lower bracket for a demonstration and I will be using the "lower-backet semi-finals" (in a double elimination bracket there is only 1 semi-final in the lower bracket, and the Winner of this game will play the loser of the upper-final in the lower-final.). The precentage assigned to the player in this slot will ALWAYS be ROUGHLY the same, the path taken to get there will vary extremly slightly and the ammount is so small that it's irrelevant. Now lets think about what that means! It means your precentage will always be the same if you reach this point of the tournament and it doesnt matter if you lost round 4 upper and won a few games in lower, or you lost round 6 to get placed in the lower-finals. So why would you sometimes give one player a lead over the other player in lower-semis based on if they have played eachother earlier in the bracket or not? Remember you are playing precentages and the player behind the precentages doesn't actually matter. In this example one player lost in round 4 upper match, while the other won his round 4 upper match, it shouldnt matter to WHO you lost in round 4 upper (since they are all the same precentage.) when you are in lower-semis. Remember that the purpose of the bracket IS to determine the best player within a field as accurate as possible. Remember that the best player in a field is the player thats favored over the most other players in the field, this isn't often every player in the field. Remember that the purpose of the bracket ISN'T to determine as accurate as possible who is favored in any given player collision. We can clearly see that the purpose of the extended series rule clearly deviates from the general purpose of a bracket and also produces a "less legit" champion. Now, If people consider exnteded series more entertaining then using a normal more fair rule-system then I can see this beeing used but I simply can not imagine that the audience like exntended series better. I think the implementation of extended series comes from an uneducated asumption that it would produce a more fair and legit bracket while actually it is the drastic opposite! | ||
|
ninjabartender
United States1 Post
| ||
|
sparC
Germany156 Posts
or imagine B beats C and then loses to A. and before that C beat D. what kind of fucked up series are ahead? so C meets D in lower bracket and is more likely to advance because he has this possibly huge point advantage. after that C plays vs B again, this time from far behind. so then player B comes out of the loser's bracket and "fought" his way back (yeay he won one game) and then he doesn't have to pay the price that others did when facing A again in the finals? either way it's bullshit. you think the player should have an advantage because he won vs another player before in the tournament? he already has one, the pressure is on the opponent. | ||
|
Luisa_2
Germany199 Posts
I'm just curious why they decided to put it back in... | ||
|
trada
Germany346 Posts
| ||
|
bludragen88
United States345 Posts
If the goal is to prevent someone from winning first and then losing to the same player feeling unlucky for losing at the wrong time, then MLG really needs to have losers go to different brackets to reduce the chance of meeting again. To whoever suggested a swiss system, I think it'd be super cool to try a tournament like that but you'd need to play at least 10 2 game rounds to get any kind of separation at the top - you might even need 15 before it stops being just as chaotic (if not more) as MLG style double elim. I just thought I'd throw my bad ideas out there now since we're finally in range of extended series tomorrow morning. | ||
|
Witten
United States1623 Posts
On June 25 2013 09:08 ValhallaDude wrote: I don't see why so many people have this purely emotional aversion to the extended series. If a player beats another player earlier on in the tournament and goes on to win all matches and he faces that player again in the finals, why would it not be an extended series? Why does the player who wins get a double jeopardy and the player who loses get a second chance? We don't try people for the same crime twice. This should be no different. I don't think you understand what double jeopardy is... The finals of MLG will be between the winners of two different brackets, so it'll obviously make no sense to have extended series cause there will be a 0% chance that they could have met earlier. The aversion people have to extended series in the finals is that is puts the person in losers in an even more precarious position. Aside from that, it eliminates the possibility of the always exciting "bracket reset". In a Grand Finals, the person in losers (regardless of whether they ever met the person in Winners before the finals) is required to win two series instead of one. Because it's double elimination, the person in Winners only has to win one series out of two, giving them a massive advantage but still allowing the person in Losers to have a chance by outplaying his opponent. This is more fair and, more importantly, more exciting for viewers than someone coming in to a series down 2-0 from the start. It shouldn't matter who they lost to in Winners or what score they did, it just matters that they lost. That's why they are in Losers. | ||
|
FlorisXIV
Netherlands15 Posts
Round 8 spoiler + Show Spoiler + So, let's say Jaedong beats Naniwa ,his match against Dear will continue from 0-2? | ||
|
cladoliver
Brazil38 Posts
| ||
|
MonarK
United States3 Posts
| ||
|
Fuell
Netherlands3038 Posts
| ||
|
Bertholdz
23 Posts
This is cold facts, nothing to debate further really. Extended have proved unfair. | ||
|
mihajovics
179 Posts
On June 29 2013 05:54 Tanngrisnir wrote: ...I think the implementation of extended series comes from an uneducated asumption that it would produce a more fair and legit bracket while actually it is the drastic opposite! well said! also I think MLG does it just to be different than other tournaments | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland3636 Posts
I dont mind, extended series in final of double elimination bracket (they have two doble elim brackets as part of in MLG final bracket right?). What worries me is extnded seires before fnal, when one play has advantage over the other, while they both are in losers bracket. Is it possible in current form of MLG rules? If so thats bad. | ||
|
Havik_
United States5585 Posts
| ||
|
BombaySensei
United States210 Posts
deal with it | ||
|
LowEloPlayer
United States198 Posts
| ||
|
Jonoman92
United States8552 Posts
| ||
|
Sindar
6 Posts
| ||
|
iEatWoofers
Switzerland108 Posts
Imagine this in the GSL finals "oh player X has a lead because he beat player Y in the RO32. Player Y now has to win 4 games in a row, while player X only need to win twice". Everyone would flip their shit. | ||
|
OrD_SC2
United States246 Posts
GSL is a great example of this - its gone through MANY changes and yet because when the make major changes they keep them for multiple seasons (normally) and thus we don't have to add eight different *'s onto every pro's stat sheet. | ||
|
CycoDude
United States326 Posts
so is that the issue, or is the issue that double-elimination is not as good as some other method? | ||
|
Klyberess
Sweden340 Posts
On July 05 2013 11:59 CycoDude wrote: i don't know why people cry about this. if you beat someone in a best of three, and meet that same person again, they have to beat you in two best of threes, because you haven't fallen into the losers bracket yet. it's DOUBLE ELIMINATION. they've already lost once, you've lost ZERO times. it's not hard to understand. so is that the issue, or is the issue that double-elimination is not as good as some other method? If you're in the winner's bracket, you DON'T play against someone in the loser's bracket. Why do you complain that WE don't understand the system, when you clearly have no idea how it works yourself? Ugh... Apparently it IS hard to understand. | ||
|
Noobity
United States844 Posts
However, this does kind of cheat a player who has not lost a set when they face a player that has. Maybe if each MLG just starts to be 2 side by side tournaments, where the winner of 1 will play the winner of the other, creating a true best of whatever final, with extended series being used in each individual bracket but not the final? Or maybe 4 individual mini tournaments where the winner of the winners bracket and the winner of the losers bracket go to the round of 8 and then it's single elim from there? Or just make getting to the finals as the winner's bracket winner have it's own bonus prize money? I actually like that last idea. On July 05 2013 16:19 Klyberess wrote: If you're in the winner's bracket, you DON'T play against someone in the loser's bracket. Why do you complain that WE don't understand the system, when you clearly have no idea how it works yourself? Ugh... Apparently it IS hard to understand. Happens in the finals kinda often. If huk beats demuslim in the semis of the winners bracket, and then demuslim beats incontrol in the losers bracket finals, then it's huk vs demuslim in the finals where huk's already beaten demuslim once. I think that's the kinda thing he's getting at. | ||
|
polysciguy
United States487 Posts
On June 25 2013 12:20 Boucot wrote: What I don't like and I find "unfair" in this system is that it gives an advantage to a player who is at the same stage of the tournament as his opponent. Both players have lost a series. Why would a player suffer such a disadvantage because he lost to the "wrong" player ? That's why I dislike extended series. this also think about it, if the series becomes a best of 5, the player that won the previous series only has to win 1 game to move on, if it becomes a best of seven, the losing player has to win 3-4 games and is only allowed to drop a single match. when if they face any other player they only have to win 2 games. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom5895 Posts
Also from an organisational point of view it messes up the timings by making the length of each series more variable. There is no "plus" except extra games... but you could add them in better places. | ||
|
Befree
683 Posts
I formally propose this Transitive Extended Series model for future MLGs. Fairness will prevail! Or wait... Why are we even restricting this to their little subset of 3?? Why should A's games vs B, C, D, E not also be organized in such a way to relate them to F's games vs G, H, I, J? A 2-0's BCDE and F 2-1's GHIJ. And A vs F begins at 0-0?? What the fuck?? Certainly we can relate their two paths in a fair way? Now sure you might say "but genius creator of the TES model, what if GHIJ were a bunch of American noobs and BCDE were a bunch of top Koreans? We can't compare those results as if a win vs 2-0 vs B is the same as a 2-0 vs G!" Indeed you are correct, and that's why our model will also utilize an ELO system! Using the ELO of A's and F's previous opponents we can accurately weight the significance of each of their previous wins, and using this we can come up with an initial score for their series that truly will capture the accomplishments each has made so far in the tournament. But hold on you might say. Hold on sir because there's still injustice left in this MLG tournament. For example what if A beat B in the last 10 competitive matches against each other. Surely if B were to 3-2 A it would be an anomaly, an injustice against the A and the tournament as a whole! ...Dammit, you're right! We've completely ignored history in our model. Without that, we definitely cannot optimize this tournament for fairness. Okay... Well the inclusion of ELO certainly helps to a degree in terms of taking into account the history of players in our tournament, but it definitely doesn't go far enough. Our model needs to include every match in the last year... no... 2 years... no, that's not enough! Our model must include every single competitive match each player in our tournament has every played! Once we take that into account, we can then correctly weight who deserves to win every match and maybe then we can reach the level of absolutely fair results... Oh no, but what about non-competitive matches! Does the ladder game Flash won against Supernova last night not mean anything?!! How can we ignore that! We can't.. Clearly we must work with Blizzard and collect ladder data on every player and inject that into our model as well... Ah but what about melee games off the ladder?... Yes, I suppose we'll need those too. And really since we're on the subject of custom games, what if Flash beats Supernova at 5 games of Desert Strike in a row?! Sure it's not using melee ruleset but it has similar themes to our MLG competitive matches. It should also be included in our system, even if just to a small degree.... I think we've got it now guys. We just need every single game played by every player on StarCraft. And then the tournament will be truly optimized for justice... This will really be a milestone for competitive gaming, as well as humanity as a whole. WAIT Oh my god, how was I so foolish?! Our thinking, it has been so focused on purely StarCraft and purely match results, I think we're missing the human factor in this all. What about that game of Star Battle that Flash was in on that day when he had just had lunch and was feeling a little sick from it and he lost to Supernova. I mean we're COMPLETELY ignoring the factors outside of the game there! Or what about that guy who said "you suck" to Suppy before he started that MLG match. Clearly Suppy's mind was put in a different state than his opponent by this outside factor he couldn't control. Was that win to his opponent really as valuable as a clean win would have been?? NO! If we're gonna do this right, we're gonna need to factor in every emotion they feel... Well, more than that, we need every single stimuli they have ever been exposed to to be included in our model... Only at this point can we calculate the correct initial score for beginning a series. Only then we'll we be able to weight in such a way that justice always prevails. But certainly through these calculations, we can find to within an extremely tiny error (basically negligible) who should win. So why even put them through it? Because that tiny negligible chance that they have of deserving their win deserves a chance!! That's what the MLG is about! We can't ignore any factor due to its seemingly insignificant existence. A true utopia of competitive E-sports awaits us with MLG as our guide. Oh what a beautiful world it will be. And more importantly, what a fair one. | ||
|
Terrasmith
47 Posts
| ||
|
Garoodah
United States56 Posts
| ||
|
KalWarkov
Germany3910 Posts
it rly hurts my brain that 32% vote for "approve" | ||
|
KalWarkov
Germany3910 Posts
On July 05 2013 11:59 CycoDude wrote: i don't know why people cry about this. if you beat someone in a best of three, and meet that same person again, they have to beat you in two best of threes, because you haven't fallen into the losers bracket yet. it's DOUBLE ELIMINATION. they've already lost once, you've lost ZERO times. it's not hard to understand. so is that the issue, or is the issue that double-elimination is not as good as some other method? well, then why do you only have to win 2 bo3s if you already played and lost against that specific player? you should either play 2 bo3s vs EVERYONE who lost ZERO games till that point, or just fucking play a normal bo3 since u crawled all the way up to that point from a LB, and you had to go through a lot more opponents. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3167 Posts
If you are a better player go out there and prove it. | ||
|
TrippSC2
United States209 Posts
I like ES in the context of two players that are meeting in a Winners bracket vs Losers bracket finals. ES is more interesting and straight-forward to explain as a format than doing the 1 BoX to force another BoX. MLG doesn't use ES well, imo. If both players are in the same Losers bracket, they deserve to go in on equal footing. Also, in the past, they've double handicapped the Losers bracket player in the above situation which leads to an unfair and confusing format. Stuff like the Loser bracket player must win a Bo9 (Bo3 + Bo5) starting down 2-0 to extend the series further to a Bo13, which is just ridiculous. Personally, I miss the pool play that used to happen at MLG. Fairness aside, I enjoyed watching that format more than an enormous bracket. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain14738 Posts
| ||
| ||
