|
isnt the extended series just another fancy way of saying double elimination?
i mean if the player starts up with either a 2-1 or 2-0 score, if the player from the winner bracket loses 4 games, thats like losing two best of threes.
I think that they just need to change it so they play a series, and if the lower bracket player withs the series, then they play in another best of 3. This would be the same as the winner's bracket player winning the first two games and eliminating the lower bracket player.
I think MLG just over complicates the double elimination format for the views by having the extended series.
|
How can people argue that the rule isn't stupid as hell.
If you are in the losers bracket, and you play an opponent you haven't played before, you're on even footing. But if you are in the losers bracket and you play an opponent you lost to already, they start ahead. Even though YOU'VE BOTH DONE EQUALLY IN THE TOURNAMENT.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in that other mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament.
|
On October 17 2010 07:06 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:04 BraveGhost wrote:
I don't really see what's confusing you.. Nobody is confused about the format. I am not asking what the rules are, but why they are this way instead of normal double-elimination rules. Edit: With a little irritation, I might suggest that you reread the OP.
Yeah I had to question if he read the main post or not. What he described no one has a problem with. It's the "special rules" MLG felt the need to conjure up for some weird reason. I would actually be curious why they felt the need to add them.
|
On October 17 2010 07:07 travis wrote:
How can people argue that the rule isn't stupid as hell.
If you are in the losers bracket, and you play an opponent you haven't played before, you're on even footing. But if you are in the losers bracket and you play an opponent you lost to already, they start ahead. Even though YOU'VE BOTH DONE EQUALLY IN THE TOURNAMENT.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in the last mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament.
You aren't equal, one player got further in the winner's bracket...
|
On October 17 2010 07:05 SC2Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:01 iEchoic wrote:On October 17 2010 07:00 arterian wrote:
They copied the format from their World of Warcraft tournament which adopted the extended series format last season. No, they had this rule for 2-3 years, I lost because of it in like 2007. What did you play in?
It was a tournament for SOCOM by gamebattles, which adopted the MLG rules (MLG owns gamebattles).
On October 17 2010 07:07 travis wrote:
How can people argue that the rule isn't stupid as hell.
If you are in the losers bracket, and you play an opponent you haven't played before, you're on even footing. But if you are in the losers bracket and you play an opponent you lost to already, they start ahead. Even though YOU'VE BOTH DONE EQUALLY IN THE TOURNAMENT.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in that other mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament.
Agreed. Like I said, it's actually possible for team A to beat team B when the record between the two teams is actually even. That makes no sense and does not show who is the better team.
|
On October 17 2010 07:10 Belac wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:07 travis wrote:
How can people argue that the rule isn't stupid as hell.
If you are in the losers bracket, and you play an opponent you haven't played before, you're on even footing. But if you are in the losers bracket and you play an opponent you lost to already, they start ahead. Even though YOU'VE BOTH DONE EQUALLY IN THE TOURNAMENT.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in the last mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament. You aren't equal, one player got further in the winner's bracket...
which is why the player who didn't get further in the winners bracket had to play more matches in the losers bracket
thats how double elimination works
furthermore, u can be playing someone who got farther in the winners bracket but if u didn't play them before in the tournament ur still on even footing, so your explanation doesn't even make sense
|
On October 17 2010 07:07 Punic wrote:
isnt the extended series just another fancy way of saying double elimination? Not when the two players have faced each other previously. See the OP for an explanation of why.
|
I feel like MLG just plays too many games. I'd love to see a group stage into ro16 single elim
|
I agree with Travis 100 percent. The format isn't innovative by any stretch of the imagination. They're trying to be different. :/
|
On October 17 2010 07:07 travis wrote:
How can people argue that the rule isn't stupid as hell.
If you are in the losers bracket, and you play an opponent you haven't played before, you're on even footing. But if you are in the losers bracket and you play an opponent you lost to already, they start ahead. Even though YOU'VE BOTH DONE EQUALLY IN THE TOURNAMENT.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in that other mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament.
Not to mention how many games select games has had to play today alone, He's at such a disadvantage today just because he lost 2-1 to nony.
|
Bo3 is indeed 6 games max, but a bo7 is 5 max for the finals, considering going into it 2-0. Going into the bo7 2-1 makes that 4.
So for the winner that means that his chances in the finals, the amount of games he can play and win, is less.
Another thing I would like to point out is a conclusion based on what Pyrthas said, something I had not realized myself. With the continuation of the bo7, the order in which the winner wins his 2 games he needs to win the series, does not matter. In the 2 bo3's, they have to be quite consecutive. No more than one loss can be in between the 2 wins because otherwise the series would reset, and he would need an additional win. (0-1, 1-1, 1-2 -> 0-0, 1-0 etc)
What that would boil down to is that two bo3's grants at most 6 chances to win, but the time/order the winning rounds happen are restricted.
Whereas a continuation grants at most 5 chances to win, but the time/order of the winning rounds can occur in any order.
I think that it's really hard if not impossible to have a definite answer to which one of them is better. Especially considering a lot of variables like; mental state, tiredness and many more I'm sure, come into play.
Therefor I think that if the winning bracket player will have the option to choose, between 2 bo3's or continuing the series into a bo7, it would be as close to fair as possible.
Additionally if an argument can be made after that the way it turned out could have been a disadvantage to the winning bracket player, the counter argument that it was his preference to play it out that way can be easily made.
|
In a world where fatigue and stamina have absolutely no effect on your performance I'm sure that playing twice as many series as another is equal footing. If Select wins this series I dont really care if he's at a 0-0 series with Idra when he had to win 11 series compared to Idra's 6.
|
On October 17 2010 07:18 Brad` wrote:
In a world where fatigue and stamina have absolutely no effect on your performance I'm sure that playing twice as many series as another is equal footing. If Select wins this series I dont really care if he's at a 0-0 series with Idra when he had to win 11 series compared to Idra's 6. Pretty sure you missed the point. (Edit: But I might be mistaken, and just not be picking up on what you were trying to say.)
|
On October 17 2010 07:10 Belac wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:07 travis wrote:
How can people argue that the rule isn't stupid as hell.
If you are in the losers bracket, and you play an opponent you haven't played before, you're on even footing. But if you are in the losers bracket and you play an opponent you lost to already, they start ahead. Even though YOU'VE BOTH DONE EQUALLY IN THE TOURNAMENT.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in the last mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament. You aren't equal, one player got further in the winner's bracket...
This is how MLG works.. if I get further than winner's bracket than you.. and I knocked you down to loser's bracket, then I have an advantage over you, we continue our series... If I play someone in loser's I didn't knock down, we are on even footing cause someone else knocked you down, therefore we haven't tested eachother's skills yet(MLG doesn't know who's better, you gotta fight it out to move on, maybe you got knocked down by somebody a ton better than me). Idk why it's not friendly to you guys as spectators, but it is actually really really nice as a player.. I've been on the bad end of seedings in MLG. You spend a lot of $ on plane ticket + hotel + entry, no need to go home after 1 match.
The tournament is set up to end up with the best players in the top 8 over and over and over... And also helps the new guys get some experience, and who have bad seedings... it's just good for everyone.
EDIT: Double Elimination format finds the Best players(maybe not the first tournament but after a few tournaments, the point system keeps good players spread out and lets them not knock each other out early, but a new comer has a chance to get up there and get points thanks to double elim
|
I like the format, I think it gives players a much better chance to prove who's the best because they get a chance to come back and win it all no matter what.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 17 2010 07:18 Brad` wrote:
In a world where fatigue and stamina have absolutely no effect on your performance I'm sure that playing twice as many series as another is equal footing. If Select wins this series I dont really care if he's at a 0-0 series with Idra when he had to win 11 series compared to Idra's 6.
But if idra knocked out select in winner round. Idra would have an advantage in score alone. It can be such a big advantage.
|
On October 17 2010 07:19 TheAngelofDeath wrote:
I like the format, I think it gives players a much better chance to prove who's the best because they get a chance to come back and win it all no matter what.
Please read the OP. We aren't talking about the format but the special rules added to the format.
|
On October 17 2010 07:11 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:10 Belac wrote:On October 17 2010 07:07 travis wrote:
How can people argue that the rule isn't stupid as hell.
If you are in the losers bracket, and you play an opponent you haven't played before, you're on even footing. But if you are in the losers bracket and you play an opponent you lost to already, they start ahead. Even though YOU'VE BOTH DONE EQUALLY IN THE TOURNAMENT.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in the last mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament. You aren't equal, one player got further in the winner's bracket... which is why the player who didn't get further in the winners bracket had to play more matches in the losers bracket thats how double elimination worksfurthermore, u can be playing someone who got farther in the winners bracket but if u didn't play them before in the tournament ur still on even footing, so your explanation doesn't even make sense
Yes, if you are playing someone before you haven't met (ie lost or won against) in the losers bracket, you are on equal footing. That is fair correct?
|
On October 17 2010 07:19 BraveGhost wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 17 2010 07:10 Belac wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:07 travis wrote:
How can people argue that the rule isn't stupid as hell.
If you are in the losers bracket, and you play an opponent you haven't played before, you're on even footing. But if you are in the losers bracket and you play an opponent you lost to already, they start ahead. Even though YOU'VE BOTH DONE EQUALLY IN THE TOURNAMENT.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in the last mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament. You aren't equal, one player got further in the winner's bracket... This is how MLG works.. if I get further than winner's bracket than you.. and I knocked you down to loser's bracket, then I have an advantage over you, we continue our series... If I play someone in loser's I didn't knock down, we are on even footing cause someone else knocked you down, therefore we haven't tested eachother's skills yet(MLG doesn't know who's better, you gotta fight it out to move on, maybe you got knocked down by somebody a ton better than me). Idk why it's not friendly to you guys as spectators, but it is actually really really nice as a player.. I've been on the bad end of seedings in MLG. You spend a lot of $ on plane ticket + hotel + entry, no need to go home after 1 match. The tournament is set up to end up with the best players in the top 8 over and over and over... And also helps the new guys get some experience, and who have bad seedings... it's just good for everyone. EDIT: Double Elimination format finds the Best players(maybe not the first tournament but after a few tournaments, the point system keeps good players spread out and lets them not knock each other out early, but a new comer has a chance to get up there and get points thanks to double elim This is the first attempt at an explanation for the added rules, but you've added a lot of other stuff about normal double elim as well. So here's my attempt to get the reason out:
me trying to explain BraveGhost's reasoning
The goal of double elimination is to make sure that if you're unlucky and meet someone much better than you early on, you still have the chance to play more. But if you've already lost once to your opponent, then you need to try extra hard to prove that you deserve to stay in the tournament. What I don't yet understand is why you should need to try extra hard. Or, put another way, here's what the rule actually seems to say to me:
- If you're unlucky and meet the same person (who's much better than you) twice, then you should have an even harder time of advancing than you would in a normal double-elimination format.
And, just to reiterate, there's still the issue of the advantage suddenly being reversed if the grand final is a rematch.
Edit:
On October 17 2010 07:23 Belac wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 07:11 travis wrote:On October 17 2010 07:10 Belac wrote:On October 17 2010 07:07 travis wrote:
How can people argue that the rule isn't stupid as hell.
If you are in the losers bracket, and you play an opponent you haven't played before, you're on even footing. But if you are in the losers bracket and you play an opponent you lost to already, they start ahead. Even though YOU'VE BOTH DONE EQUALLY IN THE TOURNAMENT.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
hey guys u know what, huk's beaten all these people in the last mlg. so why doesnt he just start 1-0 in all his matches i mean he beat them already in another tournament. You aren't equal, one player got further in the winner's bracket... which is why the player who didn't get further in the winners bracket had to play more matches in the losers bracket thats how double elimination worksfurthermore, u can be playing someone who got farther in the winners bracket but if u didn't play them before in the tournament ur still on even footing, so your explanation doesn't even make sense Yes, if you are playing someone before you haven't met (ie lost or won against) in the losers bracket, you are on equal footing. That is fair correct? travis's point is that while the score of your particular match starts off at 0-0, so that in that sense you are on equal footing, you aren't on equal footing in the sense that the person coming from LB has had to play more games than you have, coming from WB. The more you win in WB, the fewer games you have to play overall in order to get to the grand final. That's how double elim works. And then, once again, there is the question: Why should you get more of an advantage if you've also beaten your opponent earlier in the tournament? Again, so far, BraveGhost is the only person who has given a reason for that. I'm not entirely convinced by the reason, but at least it's engaging with the real issue.
|
On October 17 2010 07:07 travis wrote:
How can people argue that the rule isn't stupid as hell.
If you are in the losers bracket, and you play an opponent you haven't played before, you're on even footing. But if you are in the losers bracket and you play an opponent you lost to already, they start ahead. Even though YOU'VE BOTH DONE EQUALLY IN THE TOURNAMENT.
HOW IS THAT FAIR?
Alternatively, consider what would happen if you had two unconnected bo3s.
If you play in the first, and win 2-0 and then play in the second and lose 2-1, you have won 3 games against the same player, and they have only won 2 against you, yet you're considered the weaker player (because of the order in which you won/lost the games) and kicked out of the tournament. How is THAT fair?
The MLG system disadvantages players who have lost to people they're currently playing against compared to people who lost to different people. The 'standard' double bo3 system allows players to be kicked out of a tournament despite winning more games against their last opponent than they lost.
Depending on how you look at it, both can be seen to be unfair, but the second one strikes me as being more blatantly unfair. Your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
