|
On November 08 2010 06:04 analogkensho wrote:
I don't think there's a good solution to the extended series issue. That said, the optics of the situations look really bad - people will often cheer for the underdog, and having the deck stacked that much against them doesn't feel satisfying for the viewers.
Also, if you're going to do an extended series - and thus putting so much focus on how many rounds are won - you should be playing all 3 games of every series, shouldn't you? I mean, imagine if Tyler lost 2-0 in their first series, but then in the low-pressure 3rd game (which he'd have map choice for, right?), he pulled something out? Coming into the extended series 1-2 is a lot different than coming in 0-2. It seems like the rules have been compromised a lot in order to expedite the tournament, which again, doesn't feel good for anyone.
Speaking of which, I just think round robin group play works so much better than double elim. I know it's not practical to use for a tournament of this size, but when you're compromising and going with the double elim setup, you're going to have some drawbacks to deal with.
I think the system as it stands is probably the fairest you can practically do, but it does have a lot of real problems that can't just be brushed aside. I just don't think they can be fixed as easily as many people are implying in here.
The fairest would be every game in WB has no effect on LB. If Player1 beats Player2 he already got the advantage of not going to LB in that round and surviving in WB for another round, if they meet again it's a clean slate, this time they're playing for surviving in LB.
|
You guys realize that the alternative to an extended series is that the loser would have to win two Bo3s, not that they would play a simple Bo3, right? There is still going to be an advantage for the player who won the first time. The main difference is that under the extended series system it matters whether the original series was 2:0 or 2:1, whereas in the BoBo3 system it does not.
|
is there any Pro that isnt friends with Day9?
He seems to talk to all of them ;D
|
WB Finals :
Jinro 2/1 TT1
LB Semis2 :
TLO 0/2 PainUser
Tyler 2/1 Machine
LB Final1 :
PainUser 4/2 Tyler (BO7)
LB Final 2 :
TT1 1/0 PainUser
Placements : TLO 2/1 Machine Ret 2/0 Drewbie
Standings would be :
Top 2 : Liquid`Jinro
Top 3 : Fnatic.TT1 / PainUser
4th : Liquid`Tyler
5th : Liquid`TLO
6th : EG.Machine
7th : Liquid`Ret
8th : root.Drewbie
I'll paste and update the standings as games unfold.
|
On November 08 2010 06:04 Ryzu wrote:
Thread spiraling into mass whining. Another quality LR thread.
Your constant inability to adapt your argument is another quality post. The constant "People are complaining because it's Tyler" is getting old. Same complaints happened with Select AGAINST Tyler yet that's all people seem to be saying. Rather annoying.
Anyway do think the games should be focused on now. A separate thread can deal with this mess
|
|
|
|
|
On November 08 2010 06:01 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:00 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
Even the wording of their poll is wrong. The extended series rule is 100% fair... whether or not they want to use it is a different story. But there's certainly nothing more fair/unfair about it than without the extended series rule. How is it 100% fair? Please explain your reasoning. As I view it , it is very unfair for any player that does not face the same opponent in LB as in WB. I'm sure everyone would love to have extra chances.
It's fair because it applies to everybody in the tournament as is easy to understand an enforce. Whether you think it should be applied is a different argument.
Neither solution gives 100% happiness, but both are fair.
Extended series: Avoids problems from a final series going 2-3 and the person with 2 wins advancing over the person with 3 wins.
Non-Extended: Says fairness is derived from equality stemming from a reset of past results.
If we ignore all past results then that would mean for the sake of consistency you'd have to remove the winner bracket's champion having an advantage over the loser's bracket, no? If not, why draw the line there and not simply for beating an earlier opponent? Why does that logic apply there but not later?
I honestly don't have a horse in either race and don't have a large feeling. But both sides make sense, and the outcry about it blows my mind. Hell, at the first MLG there was even pages and pages of people crying that it was a double elimination tournament. People will complain about anything.
|
On November 08 2010 06:06 HCastorp wrote:
You guys realize that the alternative to an extended series is that the loser would have to win two Bo3s, not that they would play a simple Bo3, right? There is still going to be an advantage for the player who won the first time. The main difference is that under the extended series system it matters whether the original series was 2:0 or 2:1, whereas in the BoBo3 system it does not.
The winner has less games to play to make it to that point. That is a serious advantage.
|
On November 08 2010 06:05 Windrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:04 zoLo wrote:On November 08 2010 06:03 Windrose wrote:
That Referee girl that comes by after the first game in TT1 v PainUser is hot @__@ You gotta be kidding... What =( I like asian girls. She got that nice waitress kinda look to it with the suit and the hair was nice.
you speak the truth my friend, she would get it.
Then again, we've all been glued to our screens watching pasty white Nerds all weekend........A GURL!!!1
|
On November 08 2010 06:05 xOff wrote:
In the extended series rule you need to win more total games than your opponent..that sounds about right to me..
This. Also Tyler already mentioned before that he was screwed over on a tourney that didn't have the extended series so I'm sure he's not going crazy like most people here.
|
They have the names messed up.
Seems like TT1 is now playing terran and PU is going for the toss.
Edit: They just removed it.
|
What did Select say to day9?
|
On November 08 2010 06:06 HCastorp wrote:
You guys realize that the alternative to an extended series is that the loser would have to win two Bo3s, not that they would play a simple Bo3, right? There is still going to be an advantage for the player who won the first time. The main difference is that under the extended series system it matters whether the original series was 2:0 or 2:1, whereas in the BoBo3 system it does not.
That's the alternative for a WB vs. LB game, not a LB vs. LB game where it would be a simple Bo3.
|
On November 08 2010 06:07 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:01 Numy wrote:On November 08 2010 06:00 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
Even the wording of their poll is wrong. The extended series rule is 100% fair... whether or not they want to use it is a different story. But there's certainly nothing more fair/unfair about it than without the extended series rule. How is it 100% fair? Please explain your reasoning. As I view it , it is very unfair for any player that does not face the same opponent in LB as in WB. I'm sure everyone would love to have extra chances. It's fair because it applies to everybody in the tournament as is easy to understand an enforce. Whether you think it should be applied is a different argument. Neither solution gives 100% happiness, but both are fair. Extended series: Avoids problems from a final series going 2-3 and the person with 2 wins advancing over the person with 3 wins. Non-Extended: Says fairness is derived from equality stemming from a reset of past results. If we ignore all past results then that would mean for the sake of consistency you'd have to remove the winner bracket's champion having an advantage over the loser's bracket, no? If not, why draw the line there and not simply for beating an earlier opponent? Why does that logic apply there but not later? I honestly don't have a horse in either race and don't have a large feeling. But both sides make sense, and the outcry about it blows my mind. Hell, at the first MLG there was even pages and pages of people crying that it was a double elimination tournament. People will complain about anything.
No...that doesnt make anything fair. It simply makes it applied for everyone so anyone can get screwed.
|
|
|
Man...3 Liquid players in top 5, and 4 in top 7...sick results.
|
On November 08 2010 06:06 HCastorp wrote:
You guys realize that the alternative to an extended series is that the loser would have to win two Bo3s, not that they would play a simple Bo3, right? There is still going to be an advantage for the player who won the first time. The main difference is that under the extended series system it matters whether the original series was 2:0 or 2:1, whereas in the BoBo3 system it does not.
You do realize that there is NO NEED to have to play 2 bo3 ? Both matches are UNRELATED.
The only time where you'd need 2 bo3 is the grand finals.
Why do you want one player to have an advantage when he himself ALSO lost one series ? Doesn't really matter if you play the same guy in the LB or another one you never met... Well it shouldn't, at least.
|
On November 08 2010 06:06 HCastorp wrote:
You guys realize that the alternative to an extended series is that the loser would have to win two Bo3s, not that they would play a simple Bo3, right? There is still going to be an advantage for the player who won the first time. The main difference is that under the extended series system it matters whether the original series was 2:0 or 2:1, whereas in the BoBo3 system it does not.
Why wouldn't they just play a regular Bo3?
I don't think the way it's set up right now is unfair, but it's certainly unnecessary.
|
On November 08 2010 06:06 HCastorp wrote:
You guys realize that the alternative to an extended series is that the loser would have to win two Bo3s, not that they would play a simple Bo3, right? There is still going to be an advantage for the player who won the first time. The main difference is that under the extended series system it matters whether the original series was 2:0 or 2:1, whereas in the BoBo3 system it does not.
You're confused, people aren't talking about the Grand Final.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
