On July 23 2012 03:12 Yaki wrote: Is MLG going to remove extended series some day ? I mean are they just keeping it to annoy everyone ? I see no valid point in keeping it and it is really unfair.
Ironically, the only positive of extended series is actually that it is fair.
Pretty much this, its gives the person who won an advantage and the person who lost a disadvantage, how is that no fair.
You don't understand what fair means.
It's fair but it's stupid. Saying that the person who lost the match starts with a 2-0 advantage in the extended series (instead of the winner) is also fair. But it's also stupid.
What? No, that's NOT fair. It's fair to give an advantage to the player who already beat the guy once, it's not fair to do the opposite.
If player A and player B meet in round 7, and player B loses, it's decidedly unfair to let player B get a clean slate in round 3 if they meet again.
The only problem with extended series is that it makes for terribad finals.
You don't understand what fair means. It's still fair.
I hate Extended Series and hope they get rid of it. Just tree.hugger based his post on semantics (the word "fair"), and none of you understand.
Trust me, my name has the word "fair" in it, I know what it means.
I wish my name had "facedesk" in it, because it's what I'm doing right now.
I understand what you said, and I agree that's why they should get rid of extended series. Because it's stupid.
But extended series is technically, as tree.hugger said, fair. Each player has an equal opportunity to be advantaged by the rule as disadvantaged. Unfair would be something like Idra starting with a 1-0 lead in every series, or if the bracket was configured in such a way that, prior to any games being played, certain individuals were more likely to start with an extended series lead than a deficit (which is not the case at all).
So, the rule is actually fair.
No, it's actually not fair. Fair would be that in double elimination everyone would go out of the tournament if they lose two series.
On July 23 2012 03:23 nojok wrote: I don't think the extended series rule is fair, double elimination bracket means to me that if you lose twice you're out but a player getting the advantage because of this rule can lose twice and still be in. How is this fair?
Starcraft is a game of limited information. If two players have met once, they've played their hand, and the winner has shown his best, winning strategy. The loser now knows what that strategy is, and can counter it specifically. Thereby, if the same players meet again, the loser needs to win more games, to remove that advantage.
Didn't they say that it's specifically about not being able to get knocked out by one player even though you didn't have a worse head to head score?
That would be a dumb reason to keep it. They really need to get rid of extended series.
I believe the reason previously was people don't tank pool games to avoid certain opponents or help teammates, but it's not guaranteed anyway, and it definitely should not be used in Open Bracket / Arena play.
On July 23 2012 03:12 Yaki wrote: Is MLG going to remove extended series some day ? I mean are they just keeping it to annoy everyone ? I see no valid point in keeping it and it is really unfair.
Ironically, the only positive of extended series is actually that it is fair.
Pretty much this, its gives the person who won an advantage and the person who lost a disadvantage, how is that no fair.
You don't understand what fair means.
It's fair but it's stupid. Saying that the person who lost the match starts with a 2-0 advantage in the extended series (instead of the winner) is also fair. But it's also stupid.
What? No, that's NOT fair. It's fair to give an advantage to the player who already beat the guy once, it's not fair to do the opposite.
If player A and player B meet in round 7, and player B loses, it's decidedly unfair to let player B get a clean slate in round 3 if they meet again.
The only problem with extended series is that it makes for terribad finals.
You don't understand what fair means. It's still fair.
I hate Extended Series and hope they get rid of it. Just tree.hugger based his post on semantics (the word "fair"), and none of you understand.
Trust me, my name has the word "fair" in it, I know what it means.
I wish my name had "facedesk" in it, because it's what I'm doing right now.
I understand what you said, and I agree that's why they should get rid of extended series. Because it's stupid.
But extended series is technically, as tree.hugger said, fair. Each player has an equal opportunity to be advantaged by the rule as disadvantaged. Unfair would be something like Idra starting with a 1-0 lead in every series, or if the bracket was configured in such a way that, prior to any games being played, certain individuals were more likely to start with an extended series lead than a deficit (which is not the case at all).
So, the rule is actually fair.
you just spent your last three posts telling us we didnt know what fair was.... and now your switching and saying its stupid but fair... well played.
On July 23 2012 03:23 nojok wrote: I don't think the extended series rule is fair, double elimination bracket means to me that if you lose twice you're out but a player getting the advantage because of this rule can lose twice and still be in. How is this fair?
Starcraft is a game of limited information. If two players have met once, they've played their hand, and the winner has shown his best, winning strategy. The loser now knows what that strategy is, and can counter it specifically. Thereby, if the same players meet again, the loser needs to win more games, to remove that advantage.
Sure the losing player did not do his best, he was like "hehe I will meet him again in LB & I will cursh him!" They just both played their best that's all. Double elimination should get you eliminated if you lost twice, as simple as that. In a random sport championship, it does not matter that you have beaten the champion if you lost to every other teams, you're still the last one. It's the same thing.
On July 23 2012 03:12 Yaki wrote: Is MLG going to remove extended series some day ? I mean are they just keeping it to annoy everyone ? I see no valid point in keeping it and it is really unfair.
Ironically, the only positive of extended series is actually that it is fair.
Pretty much this, its gives the person who won an advantage and the person who lost a disadvantage, how is that no fair.
You don't understand what fair means.
It's fair but it's stupid. Saying that the person who lost the match starts with a 2-0 advantage in the extended series (instead of the winner) is also fair. But it's also stupid.
What? No, that's NOT fair. It's fair to give an advantage to the player who already beat the guy once, it's not fair to do the opposite.
If player A and player B meet in round 7, and player B loses, it's decidedly unfair to let player B get a clean slate in round 3 if they meet again.
The only problem with extended series is that it makes for terribad finals.
You don't understand what fair means. It's still fair.
I hate Extended Series and hope they get rid of it. Just tree.hugger based his post on semantics (the word "fair"), and none of you understand.
Trust me, my name has the word "fair" in it, I know what it means.
If 2 players meet in the winners bracket and player A beats player B, then play B loses against player C in the winners bracket, player A and player B meet again in the losers bracket and they should start at 0-0 because they both lost once in the winners bracket and their first match should be irrevelant. That's how I see it but I might be wrong.
Yea that's how I see it. Where it gets tricky is the finals. Because you can have a guy that went undefeated without dropping a single game facing a guy from losers. Some sort of advantage for the guy in winners seams necessary at that point.
On July 23 2012 03:23 figq wrote: One of the silly aspects of extended series (when it comes to Starcraft particularly - which this system wasn't designed for) is that it awards the gimmicky player who wins the first games in a long series, and punishes the intelligent player who figures his opponent's style, adapts and starts winning in the later games of a long series.
We have seen amazing comebacks under the extended series rule. If a loss truly was a fluke, a player can always make it back. The problem with players meeting twice in the same tournament is that the result is likely to be the same the second time they meet, because the better player usually wins and circumstances are unlikely to change overnight.
You believe more in the concept of a "better player", and I believe more in the concept of adaptation.
On July 23 2012 03:23 nojok wrote: I don't think the extended series rule is fair, double elimination bracket means to me that if you lose twice you're out but a player getting the advantage because of this rule can lose twice and still be in. How is this fair?
Starcraft is a game of limited information. If two players have met once, they've played their hand, and the winner has shown his best, winning strategy. The loser now knows what that strategy is, and can counter it specifically. Thereby, if the same players meet again, the loser needs to win more games, to remove that advantage.
This would be true if pro players were dumb and had only one build. Because this is not the case i don't really know what you're trying to say here.
They don't have only one build, but the winner will likely be using his best strategy because the chances of meeting the same player again are low. The loser will likely have used strategies that didn't work in that specific matchup, so he won't be using them again anyway.
On July 23 2012 03:12 Yaki wrote: Is MLG going to remove extended series some day ? I mean are they just keeping it to annoy everyone ? I see no valid point in keeping it and it is really unfair.
Ironically, the only positive of extended series is actually that it is fair.
Pretty much this, its gives the person who won an advantage and the person who lost a disadvantage, how is that no fair.
You don't understand what fair means.
It's fair but it's stupid. Saying that the person who lost the match starts with a 2-0 advantage in the extended series (instead of the winner) is also fair. But it's also stupid.
What? No, that's NOT fair. It's fair to give an advantage to the player who already beat the guy once, it's not fair to do the opposite.
If player A and player B meet in round 7, and player B loses, it's decidedly unfair to let player B get a clean slate in round 3 if they meet again.
The only problem with extended series is that it makes for terribad finals.
You don't understand what fair means. It's still fair.
I hate Extended Series and hope they get rid of it. Just tree.hugger based his post on semantics (the word "fair"), and none of you understand.
Trust me, my name has the word "fair" in it, I know what it means.
I wish my name had "facedesk" in it, because it's what I'm doing right now.
Fair in that it applies to everyone.
Something applying to everyone isn't automatically fair. Let's say a company decides to promote 10 people. Is it fair to ignore seniority or prior performance?
You have no clue what you are talking about, and are making up bullshit questions.
If a company puts in a policy, previous to hiring everyone, that only people who produce 500 widgets a day are promoted, then that is fair. It applies equally to everyone who consents and is used as a standard.
Similarly, all participants consented to the same rules - they are all equally advantaged/disadvantaged at the start of the competition. There's no inequity at the beginning (and yes, I meant inequity, not inequality).
Assuming an expected win ratio of 50% for all players, no matter where you are placed in the MLG bracket, the expected value of the extended series rule at the start of the tournament is nil.
Whether extended series is fair or not isn't as easy as saying "the winner of the last set get's an advantage and that's fair" because it all about how big the advantage is. Remember not having to go down to the losers bracket is also an advantage, and with extended series that advantage might be a little to big.
On July 23 2012 03:12 Yaki wrote: Is MLG going to remove extended series some day ? I mean are they just keeping it to annoy everyone ? I see no valid point in keeping it and it is really unfair.
Ironically, the only positive of extended series is actually that it is fair.
Pretty much this, its gives the person who won an advantage and the person who lost a disadvantage, how is that no fair.
You don't understand what fair means.
It's fair but it's stupid. Saying that the person who lost the match starts with a 2-0 advantage in the extended series (instead of the winner) is also fair. But it's also stupid.
What? No, that's NOT fair. It's fair to give an advantage to the player who already beat the guy once, it's not fair to do the opposite.
If player A and player B meet in round 7, and player B loses, it's decidedly unfair to let player B get a clean slate in round 3 if they meet again.
The only problem with extended series is that it makes for terribad finals.
You don't understand what fair means. It's still fair.
I hate Extended Series and hope they get rid of it. Just tree.hugger based his post on semantics (the word "fair"), and none of you understand.
Trust me, my name has the word "fair" in it, I know what it means.
If 2 players meet in the winners bracket and player A beats player B, then play B loses against player C in the winners bracket, player A and player B meet again in the losers bracket and they should start at 0-0 because they both lost once in the winners bracket and their first match should be irrevelant. That's how I see it but I might be wrong.
I'm going to assume you meant Player A lost against Player C, since that would make logical sense.
Let's say all the games were 2-0, for simplicity's sake.
Player A now has a 2-0 lead on Player B. This is stupid.
BUT: Equally as likely, Player B could've beaten Player A and had a 2-0 lead on Player A.
So it goes both ways - the rule is fair.
Again, I hate extended series and want it gone, but as tree.hugger said, the one thing about the rule that is okay is it is applied equally to all players, hence fair.
I completely disagree that it is fair. I think the person the advantage given to the winner of the previous series is unfair because he has done nothing to deserve it. At the moment of the match both people have lost an equal amount of games, and the loser has won more to make up for losing earlier. There is no valid rationale why the previous series should count. I don't think your definition of fair makes any sense, I don't think the only requirement for fairness is equal application.
On July 23 2012 03:12 Yaki wrote: Is MLG going to remove extended series some day ? I mean are they just keeping it to annoy everyone ? I see no valid point in keeping it and it is really unfair.
Ironically, the only positive of extended series is actually that it is fair.
Pretty much this, its gives the person who won an advantage and the person who lost a disadvantage, how is that no fair.
You don't understand what fair means.
It's fair but it's stupid. Saying that the person who lost the match starts with a 2-0 advantage in the extended series (instead of the winner) is also fair. But it's also stupid.
What? No, that's NOT fair. It's fair to give an advantage to the player who already beat the guy once, it's not fair to do the opposite.
If player A and player B meet in round 7, and player B loses, it's decidedly unfair to let player B get a clean slate in round 3 if they meet again.
The only problem with extended series is that it makes for terribad finals.
You don't understand what fair means. It's still fair.
I hate Extended Series and hope they get rid of it. Just tree.hugger based his post on semantics (the word "fair"), and none of you understand.
Trust me, my name has the word "fair" in it, I know what it means.
I wish my name had "facedesk" in it, because it's what I'm doing right now.
Fair in that it applies to everyone.
Something applying to everyone isn't automatically fair. Let's say a company decides to promote 10 people. Is it fair to ignore seniority or prior performance?
You have no clue what you are talking about, and are making up bullshit questions.
You have no idea how to talk to other people, so I'm going to let you practice that skillset on someone else.
EPT
