|
The title 'unusual' extended series system is misleading. This is a common variation on the double elimination system and has been used elsewhere.
As for whether or not it is fair, I think it's nearly equally as fair as playing 2 Bo3s (which is the rule if they haven't met). Playing 2 Bo3s gives the loser the option to go 4-2 and still win, where in a Bo7 with a 2-1 disadvantage, his max worst record to win is 3-1. In a Bo7 with a 2-0 disadvantage, his max worst record to win is 4-1.
HOWEVER, in a double Bo3 series, you cannot go 1-2 in the same Bo3 or you lose it all. Therefore, that extra 1 loss you are allowed playing double Bo3s has to be done in a -very- specific manner. Also, in a Bo7 with only a 2-1 disadvantage, you only have to win 3 matches. This could help if you were very exhausted or something.
That said, the rule did not even affect MLG DC.
SeleCT won the only extended series, and he was the loser in the first round. An extended series gives an extra -slight- (read: 1-2 game) disadvantage to the loser. Therefore, SeleCT won despite the disadvantage.
|
I have a feeling they might change it for next year... I would love to see semifinals be extended as well to bo5's...
|
You can't really add "more" luck. If you get lucky with a good bracket you've got a better chance. If you get a crappy bracket, hope for a better one next tour you play in. There isn't some magical, since rule X exists this bracket would be lucky for me, but now it's lucky times 2!
|
On October 17 2010 08:27 dcemuser wrote:
-slight- (read: 1-2 game) disadvantage 1-2 games in a bo7 is not slight.
Everything else you said was just describing the rule, and not giving reasons for thinking that it's fair or unfair. Most everyone in the thread understands the rule, though, so I'm not really sure what the point of all that was. (Especially in light of what other people, like Aim Here and BraveGhost, have already said.)
Edit:
Of course you can add luck. Whether it's good or bad to add luck, and whether this particular case is actually a case in which luck has been added, are separate issues, of course. But of course you can introduce more randomness to a process that contains some randomness.
|
On October 17 2010 08:20 Pyrthas wrote:
One is whether, in a LB match, the player coming from WB should have a further advantage over the LB player if they've met previously. The other is how to handle the grand finals (which itself has two parts in this thread: rule 7 (which hasn't been discussed much) and what to do when the grand final is a rematch).
Not saying you didn't understand that. But I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page, just in case. Talking past each other is never helpful!
Well I'm pretty sure Mlg's reasoning is that every player has the ability to lose one bo3, which I assume is what allows for IdrA to lose one in the finals. Perhaps having them continue on into a bo7 would be better instead of a second bo3.
edit:Reworded it.
|
On October 17 2010 08:38 Brad` wrote:
every player has the ability to lose one bo3 and still have the opportunity to continue on in the tournament Independent of everything else: Is this true in the case where the grand final is a rematch and the WB player loses? This is the major thing I'm not certain of. It seems to me that the rules say that, for instance, if Huk had beaten select in the losers final, then the grand final would have been a bo7 with Idra up 2-0 over Huk. Is that correct? If so, what happens if Idra loses the bo7? Is he knocked out? Does he get a second chance?
I've been assuming throughout the thread that this is correct, and that Idra would not get a second chance. (And if so, I think that the finals are unfair for the WB player if it's a rematch and the earlier match was 2-1, as I've explained before.) But I admit that I can't find anything completely conclusive in the rules.
|
On October 17 2010 08:32 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
You can't really add "more" luck. If you get lucky with a good bracket you've got a better chance. If you get a crappy bracket, hope for a better one next tour you play in. There isn't some magical, since rule X exists this bracket would be lucky for me, but now it's lucky times 2!
wtf are u even arguing? is english not your first language?
here, let me change the words for you since for some reason you don't understand
IT ADDS VARIANCE
|
On October 17 2010 08:37 Pyrthas wrote:
1-2 games in a bo7 is not slight.
Everything else you said was just describing the rule, and not giving reasons for thinking that it's fair or unfair. Most everyone in the thread understands the rule, though, so I'm not really sure what the point of all that was. (Especially in light of what other people, like Aim Here and BraveGhost, have already said.)
I'm trying to point out that you guys are acting like the rule is 100% negative and there is no redeeming case.
There IS one counter-case (in the finals only).
If you were going to go WWWLLL (or WWLWLL or WLWWLL or LWWWLL), you could win an extended Bo7 assuming you started with a 2-1 disadvantage because you don't end up playing the matches you would have lost.
In a double Bo3 - you would lose with that order of wins and losses.
Edit: I made it more clear I was referring to the finals only.
I know this is a very far out there situation, but it makes the rule only like 99% negative.
Personally, I think if they want to keep the rule, they should only keep it for the finals and only if the finals player lost in the semis to that same player.
This would eliminate all of the weird situations like losing to a guy in the round of 64 and then getting screwed over when you get into a finals match with him.
|
I really liked mlg's format. I was scared yesterday with the stream quality and delays, but today definately delivered.
|
Travis is kind of right, being two games down just beacuse you happend to play the guy earlier in WB is beyond stupid and not actually fair at all. You could have a similiar record as the guy who you faced and still get punished beacuse of silly rules like this.
Tournament structure should always be made as fair as possible to try to ensure that the best player wins the event.
|
On October 17 2010 08:46 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 08:37 Pyrthas wrote:
1-2 games in a bo7 is not slight.
Everything else you said was just describing the rule, and not giving reasons for thinking that it's fair or unfair. Most everyone in the thread understands the rule, though, so I'm not really sure what the point of all that was. (Especially in light of what other people, like Aim Here and BraveGhost, have already said.)
I'm trying to point out that you guys are acting like the rule is 100% negative and there is no redeeming case. There IS one counter-case. If you were going to go WWWLLL (or WWLWLL or WLWWLL or LWWWLL), you could win an extended Bo7 assuming you started with a 2-1 disadvantage. In a double Bo3 - you would lose with that order of wins and losses. I'm pretty confused here. Why are you talking about playing six games with a beginning score of 2-1? I could understand if you were talking about two bo3s and then talking about starting out being down 2-0 (that would be relevant to the discussion of rule 7 in the OP), but then you wouldn't have WWWLLL; you would have WW (first bo3) and WLL (second bo3), etc. Maybe that was just a typo or something, I dunno. Could you spell out the case you have in mind a little more?
And then could you explain why you're not just saying this, which is in the OP?
On October 17 2010 06:11 Pyrthas wrote:
The only difference between this version of the rule and the official rule is that under the official rule, the player coming from winners can win two games and lose the grand finals (by going 1-2 in both bo3s).
|
This really makes no sense.
It's unfair. It adds randomness. It wears players out trying to come back from 0-2 in a bo7 whereas their peers are playing bo3s. If you want rivalries just invite Idra and Tyler and play a showmatch. If you want a real tournament don't come up with rules that create unprofessional conditions.
|
On October 17 2010 08:50 Senx wrote:
Tournament structure should always be made as fair as possible to try to ensure that the best player wins the event.
In that case, every tournament would be standard double elimination (no extended series). I think that is the most fair format to the players.
However, I also think double elimination (and the extended series too) in general is boring to watch.
Flash vs Jaedong finals are EPIC because the games are so close and there is huge hype over them.
How much hype would there be if Flash beat Jaedong in the semis and then Jaedong went to the losers bracket, beat somebody else, and then had to play Flash again, but now win 2 BoX series (or play an extended series with a disadvantage)?
Answer: Probably not as much.
|
The whole point of giving the WB winner a 2-0 lead is that they are rewarded for performing so well in the tournament up until that point. The problem is that players who have to fight through the loser bracket are already at a disadvantage because they have to play so many more games and are mentally and physically exhausted. Therefore it seems redundant to further punish loser's bracket players by starting them with a disadvantage in the finals.
|
On October 17 2010 08:42 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 08:38 Brad` wrote:
every player has the ability to lose one bo3 and still have the opportunity to continue on in the tournament Independent of everything else: Is this true in the case where the grand final is a rematch and the WB player loses? This is the major thing I'm not certain of. It seems to me that the rules say that, for instance, if Huk had beaten select in the losers final, then the grand final would have been a bo7 with Idra up 2-0 over Huk. Is that correct? If so, what happens if Idra loses the bo7? Is he knocked out? Does he get a second chance? I've been assuming throughout the thread that this is correct, and that Idra would not get a second chance. (And if so, I think that the finals are unfair for the WB player if it's a rematch and the earlier match was 2-1, as I've explained before.) But I admit that I can't find anything completely conclusive in the rules.
Ya the rules definately need to clarified. From my position I'd have to assume that entering a bo7 in the finals doesn't allow you your one series loss. Not really sure what to make of that because I guess its "unfair" but at the same time I think bo7 is a big enough sample size for the better player to win.
|
On October 17 2010 08:55 frog HERO wrote:
The whole point of giving the WB winner a 2-0 lead is that they are rewarded for performing so well in the tournament up until that point. No, it isn't; that's what Aim Here and BraveGhost and so on have been saying. I don't disagree with your sentiment overall, of course! But this isn't the reason that those people have given in favor of MLG's system.
|
MLG's format is much, much better than MSL and other double-elimination formats. The player coming from the winner's bracket was facing far stronger opponents than the player coming from the loser's bracket.
If two players face each other in two Bo3s, and they each win one, it doesn't make sense to knock out the player who happened to win the first and lose the second, just because he lost a set to a harder opponent that the other player likely would have lost as well.
|
On October 17 2010 08:58 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 08:55 frog HERO wrote:
The whole point of giving the WB winner a 2-0 lead is that they are rewarded for performing so well in the tournament up until that point. No, it isn't. Please read the thread.
Yes, it is.
"If the Players scheduled to play each other in the Finals have not yet played against each other in the Open Bracket, an initial Match must be played. If the Player who came from the Winners Bracket wins the initial Match, they will win the Event. "
An advantage is clearly given to the player who comes through the Winner's bracket. The problem with this is that the WB winner already has an advantage over the LB winner because the LB winner has to play more games. Therefore I don't think this rule is a good one and should be changed.
|
On October 17 2010 08:51 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2010 08:46 dcemuser wrote:On October 17 2010 08:37 Pyrthas wrote:
1-2 games in a bo7 is not slight.
Everything else you said was just describing the rule, and not giving reasons for thinking that it's fair or unfair. Most everyone in the thread understands the rule, though, so I'm not really sure what the point of all that was. (Especially in light of what other people, like Aim Here and BraveGhost, have already said.)
I'm trying to point out that you guys are acting like the rule is 100% negative and there is no redeeming case. There IS one counter-case. If you were going to go WWWLLL (or WWLWLL or WLWWLL or LWWWLL), you could win an extended Bo7 assuming you started with a 2-1 disadvantage. In a double Bo3 - you would lose with that order of wins and losses. I'm pretty confused here. Why are you talking about playing six games with a beginning score of 2-1? I could understand if you were talking about two bo3s and then talking about starting out being down 2-0 (that would be relevant to the discussion of rule 7 in the OP), but then you wouldn't have WWWLLL; you would have WW (first bo3) and WLL (second bo3), etc. Maybe that was just a typo or something, I dunno. Could you spell out the case you have in mind a little more?
Right, it is a hypothetical countercase. If a player only had the mental fortitude/willpower remaining to win only 3 games after coming from the loser's bracket (although SeleCT didn't have the energy left to win 1, arguably, poor guy), but not enough to win 4, then playing a Bo7 with a 2-1 disadvantage could be favorable to a double Bo3 situation because you require less wins to advance (needing 4 in double Bo3s).
I know that is heavily oversimpilifying things and that a direct comparison can't be made because of other factors (e.g. losers bracket player may be more confident not coming into a game with a visible disadvantage), but I thought it was worth pointing out.
That one specific example aside, I think the rule is very poor, especially in the non-finals rounds. Tyler had a significant advantage over SeleCT even though they both lost, which doesn't seem very fair to me.
|
Tyler had an advantage against Select, because he already beat Select. I this point seems to be lost on people. This continuation series can only happen once to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
