|
On November 09 2010 15:27 Kazang wrote:
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
This post is ABSOLUTELY correct. Those who think that the rule is indeed UNFAIR must read this, otherwise, if they still think it is unfair, they are in fact retarded. I like MLG's system of double elimination, however I think most people are complaining because they don't understand the system. Should change the poll to see whether people want the original format or a new single elimination one...
|
On November 09 2010 16:41 Reptarem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 15:27 Kazang wrote:
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
This post is ABSOLUTELY correct. Those who think that the rule is indeed UNFAIR must read this, otherwise, if they still think it is unfair, they are in fact retarded. I like MLG's system of double elimination, however I think most people are complaining because they don't understand the system. Should change the poll to see whether people want the original format or a new single elimination one...
Hope you get a ban for making a blanket statement like that. Read my post TWO before yours and see that there is a logical argument against this. People are complaining because MLG is changing a system that has worked just fine in competitive esports for as long as standard double elim has been around.
|
On November 09 2010 16:39 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 16:35 Pyroteq wrote:On November 09 2010 16:29 Risen wrote:
So? The person who beat you earlier moved down the WB therefor has played less matches than you, and has the advantage of not being as worn down. So coming back and winning in the LB/wherever proves that you're the better player, even if the final result is 2-3. Except theoretically, the better players are in the WB, so you've had to play tougher opponents before dropping to the LB to face the player you've already beaten. At this stage, you're trying to find out which player out of those 2 is better because that is the player that deserves to progress through the bracket. It makes absolutely ZERO sense that I should be eliminated from a tournament by a player I have more wins against. That would be completely and utterly retarded. MLG didn't introduce the rule just to piss people off and be different. They're the most successful tournament organisers in NA for a reason. Again, not true. You're assuming that brackets are completely balanced and that people will have faced people of similar skill on their side of the bracket, which is not the case. So NOT theoretically, the person who advanced in the WB already has the REAL advantage of having played less games. Why give another advantage on top of this?
Because said player hasn't dropped a series yet? Why should they be put on equal terms to someone who HAS dropped series? You don't get a second chance without paying the consequences... and in this case, its inevitably being "worn down."
|
On November 09 2010 16:39 Risen wrote:
Again, not true. You're assuming that brackets are completely balanced and that people will have faced people of similar skill on their side of the bracket, which is not the case.
So NOT theoretically, the person who advanced in the WB already has the REAL advantage of having played less games. Why give another advantage on top of this?
Actually, it is the case. MLG tournaments use a seeding system that works itself out over time. Seed 1 plays seed 128. Seed 2 plays seed 127, etc, etc.
As it gets further and further down the ladder, theoretically higher seeded players play other higher seeded players (assuming the higher seeded players have progressed).
Again, it's apparent you SC players are poisoned by crappy tournament structures that other organisations such as WCG use that don't actually produce accurate results. If player A is truly better than player B, he'll obviously be able to beat player A in an extended series. If he can't win the extended series he should be eliminated.
|
I would also like to point out how difficult it is and how idiotic it is to expect someone to win 4 games while someone else must only win two. Let me stress how HARD it is to win 4 while your opponent must only win 2 within a short time period when games are being played back to back. What would be more fair, is if MLG moved to a true double elim/triple elim hybrid and eliminated the extended play.
So instead of starting off 2-0, the players start 0-0 in a fresh Bo3. If the loser of the first Bo3 wins the second Bo3, they play a 3rd Bo3 to decide who advances.
|
On November 09 2010 16:48 Pyroteq wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 16:39 Risen wrote:
Again, not true. You're assuming that brackets are completely balanced and that people will have faced people of similar skill on their side of the bracket, which is not the case.
So NOT theoretically, the person who advanced in the WB already has the REAL advantage of having played less games. Why give another advantage on top of this? Actually, it is the case. MLG tournaments use a seeding system that works itself out over time. Seed 1 plays seed 128. Seed 2 plays seed 127, etc, etc. As it gets further and further down the ladder, theoretically higher seeded players play other higher seeded players (assuming the higher seeded players have progressed). Again, it's apparent you SC players are poisoned by crappy tournament structures that other organisations such as WCG use that don't actually produce accurate results. If player A is truly better than player B, he'll obviously be able to beat player A in an extended series. If he can't win the extended series he should be eliminated.
It's not SC players. It's Chess, Quake, CS Source, CS 1.6, SC, WC3, and just about any other tournament.
Oh hey look! Wikipedia even has an article on what a Double-Elimination tournament is!
BAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-elimination_tournament
|
On November 09 2010 16:47 Reptarem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 16:39 Risen wrote:On November 09 2010 16:35 Pyroteq wrote:On November 09 2010 16:29 Risen wrote:
So? The person who beat you earlier moved down the WB therefor has played less matches than you, and has the advantage of not being as worn down. So coming back and winning in the LB/wherever proves that you're the better player, even if the final result is 2-3. Except theoretically, the better players are in the WB, so you've had to play tougher opponents before dropping to the LB to face the player you've already beaten. At this stage, you're trying to find out which player out of those 2 is better because that is the player that deserves to progress through the bracket. It makes absolutely ZERO sense that I should be eliminated from a tournament by a player I have more wins against. That would be completely and utterly retarded. MLG didn't introduce the rule just to piss people off and be different. They're the most successful tournament organisers in NA for a reason. Again, not true. You're assuming that brackets are completely balanced and that people will have faced people of similar skill on their side of the bracket, which is not the case. So NOT theoretically, the person who advanced in the WB already has the REAL advantage of having played less games. Why give another advantage on top of this? Because said player hasn't dropped a series yet? Why should they be put on equal terms to someone who HAS dropped series? You don't get a second chance without paying the consequences... and in this case, its inevitably being "worn down."
Exactly, so they meet in the LB and the person who won the first time already has the REAL advantage of having played less matches. This means they should (if they're the better player) be able to win a Bo3 fresh from 0-0
Edit: to clarify...
I agree that those in the LB should have a consequence for losing early on. This consequence is having to play a LOT more matches than those who advanced in the WB.
|
On November 09 2010 16:48 Risen wrote:
I would also like to point out how difficult it is and how idiotic it is to expect someone to win 4 games while someone else must only win two. Let me stress how HARD it is to win 4 while your opponent must only win 2 within a short time period when games are being played back to back. What would be more fair, is if MLG moved to a true double elim/triple elim hybrid and eliminated the extended play.
So instead of starting off 2-0, the players start 0-0 in a fresh Bo3. If the loser of the first Bo3 wins the second Bo3, they play a 3rd Bo3 to decide who advances.
Ummm, then maybe the player B shouldn't have lost 2-0 in the previous series?
If player B lost 2-1 in the previous series than player A only has a 1 game advantage.
|
On November 09 2010 16:41 DooMDash wrote:
I like it.
Lol me too. I'm honestly surprised how many people don't understand the difference between double and single elimination tournaments. Granted there are variations, but for MLG the "extended series rule" is obviously just a function of the double elimination tournament format. If there is no "extended series rule" what's the point of having a double elimination tournament?
|
On November 09 2010 16:54 Pyroteq wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 16:48 Risen wrote:
I would also like to point out how difficult it is and how idiotic it is to expect someone to win 4 games while someone else must only win two. Let me stress how HARD it is to win 4 while your opponent must only win 2 within a short time period when games are being played back to back. What would be more fair, is if MLG moved to a true double elim/triple elim hybrid and eliminated the extended play.
So instead of starting off 2-0, the players start 0-0 in a fresh Bo3. If the loser of the first Bo3 wins the second Bo3, they play a 3rd Bo3 to decide who advances. Ummm, then maybe the player B shouldn't have lost 2-0 in the previous series? If player B lost 2-1 in the previous series than player A only has a 1 game advantage.
It's pointless arguing with someone who refuses to see the merit of an argument. It's also clear you've never been in a tournament for ANYTHING.
Having advanced in WB and LB in multiple gaming/wrestling/volleyball tournaments I can see from first hand experience how borked MLG's system is compared to standard double elim.
Explain to me why since double elimination's inception long, long ago the standard format has been maintained and extended series play has been an outlier please.
|
I agree, but in a tournament "fatigue" should not be a variable. Just because a player may be tired, it doesn't mean it should be taken into account. Players should have trained harder OR just not have lost the first match... I'm just stating the rule is made to be fair and it is because it benefits the better player.
|
On November 09 2010 16:41 Reptarem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 15:27 Kazang wrote:
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
This post is ABSOLUTELY correct. Those who think that the rule is indeed UNFAIR must read this, otherwise, if they still think it is unfair, they are in fact retarded. I like MLG's system of double elimination, however I think most people are complaining because they don't understand the system. Should change the poll to see whether people want the original format or a new single elimination one...
Ok you guys, explain how Jinro having the extended series vs TT1 as opposed to a whole extra life (e.g. Idra in MLG DC) is fair on Jinro. In this case he's actually being punished for having beaten TT1 already because he doesn't get the extra life, he only gets the benefit of the extended series which is worse than what it would normally be (two Bo3s, with loser having to win both)
Extended series cannot logically be fair because it disadvantages the winner in some cases (final) and advantages them in other cases (losers bracket), if one is fair then the other can't be and vice versa. Simple logic dictates that it can't be fair.
QED, it's not fair.
|
On November 09 2010 16:55 space_yes wrote:Lol me too. I'm honestly surprised how many people don't understand the difference between double and single elimination tournaments. Granted there are variations, but for MLG the "extended series rule" is obviously just a function of the double elimination tournament format. If there is no "extended series rule" what's the point of having a double elimination tournament?
Holy check... Blood vessels in my brain are about to explode...
The point of a double elimination tournament is to give players TWO chances in case their previous play (loss) did not show their true potential. Extended series play gets rid of this
|
On November 09 2010 15:27 Kazang wrote:
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
Well put. Simple math trumps "player fatigue" any day.
|
On November 09 2010 16:58 Reptarem wrote:
I agree, but in a tournament "fatigue" should not be a variable. Just because a player may be tired, it doesn't mean it should be taken into account. Players should have trained harder OR just not have lost the first match... I'm just stating the rule is made to be fair and it is because it benefits the better player.
This rule does NOT benefit the better player. I'd like to point this situation out as defined by the poster above me. If it's supposed to benefit the better player then why did Jinro get boned by it?
|
In a nut shell, if players meet up with one and other in the MLG more than once, the series is continued with each player keeping there current number of wins, with the series being extended to a best of seven.
For example, Inca was 2-0 in a Bo3. In the loser bracket he met up with the same player again. The series is now a Bo7 where Inca needed to win four games to advance while his opponent only needed to win two. Inca ended up winning 4-3.
Is this beneficial to either player? No.
What this system prevents is flukes. The first encounter the winning player has in fact demonstrated that they are the better player at that point. They simply need to win a new best of three, that is two games to move on. The losing player from the first round has demonstrated that they are the weaker player at that point, It is only fair that instead of this player advancing with two quick rockin' cheese builds because they know that there previous play did not work, they are force to compensate for the fact they lost to this person already and claw out of the whole they dug.
|
On November 09 2010 17:01 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 15:27 Kazang wrote:
These poll results and this thread in general is huge example of why you should never give the audience exactly what it wants as it is 99% wrong, and that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of people that know what they are doing.
People do not seem to understand the rules at all. Saying it "punishes" players or that it gives an "unfair advantage" is just flat out wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.
Double elimination is the best system within the limitations of a live tournament. It gives the best matches and rewards the best players.
The format makes it impossible for someone to get far on luck and that players will get the finishing place they deserve from winning games, not luck of the draw.
Each "series" is not and should not be treated as separate event, this is not a straight knockout tournament format where placing matters. A win early in the tournament is just as valid and important as a win in the later rounds.
Without the extended series rule, a player who has played worse and won less matches can advance through a player that has beaten them more times. Now that would not make sense, that would not be fair and it would not reward the best player.
Take this example:
Player A faces Player B in the upper bracket, Player A easily wins 2-0.
Player A is later knocked down to the lower bracket and faces Player B again, Map 1 favours Player B and he barely scrapes a win, Map 2 is neutral that favours the better player not just the race, Player A wins easily, Map 3 is chosen by Player B and favours him, again he barely scrapes through a win, bringing the Series to 1-2 in favour of Player B.
Without the extended series Player B will knock out Player A despite having only won 2 games and lost 3.
The overall score is 3-2 in favour of Player A yet he would be eliminated without the extended series rule. This is not fair, this does not reward the better player and on top if that its encourage scrappy play, cheese and all-ins. Worse players get further in the tournament than better ones resulting in less interesting games and skewed results.
However with the extended series Player B must win more games against Player A to advance, 3-2 is not enough, 3-3 is not enough, that doesn't show who is the better player, Player B must show he can beat Player A cleanly in more games.
With the extended series it always, always means the player who plays better throughout the whole tournament will advance, not the guy that just wins 2 games against the better player by fluke.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that the format benefits the better player, it does not "punish" those in the lower bracket and neither does it give an "advantage" to those in the upper bracket. It makes it so the player who wins more games and plays better gets through.
It doesn't matter where or when in tournament those games are played, all wins are equal and the larger the sample size of games the more this benefits the one who plays better.
Without the extended series, losers can advance through people that have beaten them and winners, the better players, can be knocked out by people who played worse and who are not as good.
It doesn't "screw over players" it does the exact opposite but most people are too stupid to understand how it works, which is why those people do not run tournaments and that running tournaments should be left to people who do understand what is going on and how it works.
Well put. Simple math trumps "player fatigue" any day.
Nice one liner, very thoughtful! Simple math? How about this.
Player A is 10-5 and has advanced to Round 5 of WB where he loses in Round 6 0-2. Player B lost to player A in Round 1 of WB due to a string of bad luck. Player B is 22-2 having advanced all the way to LB Round 10 and will now face player A in Round 11 of the LB. You're saying the 10-7 player should have the extended series advantage over the player who is 22-2?
|
On November 09 2010 16:58 Risen wrote:
It's pointless arguing with someone who refuses to see the merit of an argument. It's also clear you've never been in a tournament for ANYTHING.
Having advanced in WB and LB in multiple gaming/wrestling/volleyball tournaments I can see from first hand experience how borked MLG's system is compared to standard double elim.
Explain to me why since double elimination's inception long, long ago the standard format has been maintained and extended series play has been an outlier please.
LMFAO. Since you want to compare e-peens I help run the biggest game tournaments in Australia on a national level and I was a WCG Grand Finalist for Halo 2 with many other notable tournament results.
If player A has beaten player B 3-2, it makes no sense that player B should proceed through the bracket. I see the merit of your argument, however from a competitive level the extended series provides more accurate results. I'm pretty sure MLG know what they're doing.
What pisses me off the most is how most the posts I read here only seem to care about an "exciting" finals. As a player, I don't care how anti-climatic the finals are, I care that the better team wins. If the better team only has to win 3 games, I don't care. The tournament brackets shouldn't be screwed up to cater to less players just because viewers want the finals to be exciting.
Besides, sometimes the extended series rule ends up providing an even better grand finals match. In previous MLG's teams have come out of the losers bracket with enormous comebacks winning the grand finals which makes it 10X's more exciting.
|
On November 09 2010 16:58 Reptarem wrote:
I agree, but in a tournament "fatigue" should not be a variable. Just because a player may be tired, it doesn't mean it should be taken into account. Players should have trained harder OR just not have lost the first match... I'm just stating the rule is made to be fair and it is because it benefits the better player.
Yes.
On November 09 2010 16:58 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 16:54 Pyroteq wrote:On November 09 2010 16:48 Risen wrote:
I would also like to point out how difficult it is and how idiotic it is to expect someone to win 4 games while someone else must only win two. Let me stress how HARD it is to win 4 while your opponent must only win 2 within a short time period when games are being played back to back. What would be more fair, is if MLG moved to a true double elim/triple elim hybrid and eliminated the extended play.
So instead of starting off 2-0, the players start 0-0 in a fresh Bo3. If the loser of the first Bo3 wins the second Bo3, they play a 3rd Bo3 to decide who advances. Ummm, then maybe the player B shouldn't have lost 2-0 in the previous series? If player B lost 2-1 in the previous series than player A only has a 1 game advantage. It's pointless arguing with someone who refuses to see the merit of an argument. It's also clear you've never been in a tournament for ANYTHING. Having advanced in WB and LB in multiple gaming/wrestling/volleyball tournaments I can see from first hand experience how borked MLG's system is compared to standard double elim. Explain to me why since double elimination's inception long, long ago the standard format has been maintained and extended series play has been an outlier please.
No.
MLG's system is effectively standard. The LB player beating the WB player twice is really not that different from an extended series. The WB player hasn't lost a single series while the LB player is already down one series. If they've already played each other then it's just an extended series. Are two Bo3's really that different than one Bo7? The WB player has to lose twice to be knocked out. It is a double elimination tournament after all..
EDIT: MLG is a variation on standard double elimination, extended series prevents one player from going 3-2 verse someone and getting sent home
|
On November 09 2010 17:09 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 16:58 Reptarem wrote:
I agree, but in a tournament "fatigue" should not be a variable. Just because a player may be tired, it doesn't mean it should be taken into account. Players should have trained harder OR just not have lost the first match... I'm just stating the rule is made to be fair and it is because it benefits the better player. Yes. Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 16:58 Risen wrote:On November 09 2010 16:54 Pyroteq wrote:On November 09 2010 16:48 Risen wrote:
I would also like to point out how difficult it is and how idiotic it is to expect someone to win 4 games while someone else must only win two. Let me stress how HARD it is to win 4 while your opponent must only win 2 within a short time period when games are being played back to back. What would be more fair, is if MLG moved to a true double elim/triple elim hybrid and eliminated the extended play.
So instead of starting off 2-0, the players start 0-0 in a fresh Bo3. If the loser of the first Bo3 wins the second Bo3, they play a 3rd Bo3 to decide who advances. Ummm, then maybe the player B shouldn't have lost 2-0 in the previous series? If player B lost 2-1 in the previous series than player A only has a 1 game advantage. It's pointless arguing with someone who refuses to see the merit of an argument. It's also clear you've never been in a tournament for ANYTHING. Having advanced in WB and LB in multiple gaming/wrestling/volleyball tournaments I can see from first hand experience how borked MLG's system is compared to standard double elim. Explain to me why since double elimination's inception long, long ago the standard format has been maintained and extended series play has been an outlier please. No. MLG's system is effectively standard. The LB player beating the WB player twice is really not that different from an extended series. The WB player hasn't lost a single series while the LB player is already down one series. If they've already played each other then it's just an extended series. Are two Bo3's really that different than one Bo7? The WB player has to lose twice to be knocked out. It is a double elimination tournament after all..
Yes... they are very different. In one player B can win the second series 2-1 and advance... in the other he can win 3 and lose 2 and go home.
Edit: MLGs system is NOT standard
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
