|
On November 09 2010 17:52 stangstang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:45 Risen wrote:On November 09 2010 17:35 jalstar wrote:On November 09 2010 17:28 Risen wrote:On November 09 2010 17:25 jalstar wrote:On November 09 2010 17:07 Risen wrote:On November 09 2010 17:01 jalstar wrote: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? Yes, obviously, since the 10-7 guy has played better players and has a winning record against player B. You can't make that generalization and say he has faced better players because they are all different people of different skills. Also, while player A has been going 2-1 against his opponents, player B has been going 2-0 against those same opponents player A is going 2-1 against. I can't say that the players in the winner's bracket are better than the players in the loser's bracket? That makes no sense. Anyway, you're always going to have some problems with overall records in double elimination. That's why group stage into single elimination is the way to go, and the most successful tournaments (OSL, World Cup, UEFA Champion's League, etc) go this route. I 100% agree that group play into single elim is the way to go. As for the winner's bracket people being better I agree (somewhat) which is why I'm saying player B is showing he's better than player A because he's 2-0ing the WB people that fall to the LB while player A only went 2-1 against them. At this point I feel like we're arguing what-ifs and neither of us is going to be swayed. Different viewpoints and both opinions are valid. I feel that having to fight up through the LB is enough of a disadvantage, you think it's unfair for a player to possibly be eliminated while having a vX record of 3-2 (or even 2-2). Group play into single elim has its problems too. like... A stacked group. only 2 players will advance. A group of terrible players. 2 of those terrible players will advance As we've seen in the GSL there were some terrible players there because they got "lucky" groups.
This is why these groups are allowed to shift around a bit in OSL.
Edit: Look at this http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/OSL
|
On November 09 2010 17:50 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:41 Risen wrote:On November 09 2010 17:34 space_yes wrote:On November 09 2010 17:00 Risen wrote:
[...]
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 Risen I'm trying to understand your argument. Doesn't extended series advantage the better player by preventing the possibility of someone going 3-2 against someone else but still getting sent home? Hmmm... yes. You misunderstood my post. Probably worded badly on my part. I'm saying player B who lost earlier can win 3 and lose 2 in the LB and be sent home. Can you give an example? This is the scenario I'm envisioning.. WB: A > B 2:0 They both meet again later in the LB: A < B 1:2 But player A gets sent home even though his net record verse B is 3:2. My understanding was that the extended series rule prevents this. Why is standard double elimination comparatively better?
your scenario is standard double elimination.
the time period between both series could be hours or even days.
|
On November 09 2010 17:58 stangstang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:50 space_yes wrote:On November 09 2010 17:41 Risen wrote:On November 09 2010 17:34 space_yes wrote:On November 09 2010 17:00 Risen wrote:
[...]
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 Risen I'm trying to understand your argument. Doesn't extended series advantage the better player by preventing the possibility of someone going 3-2 against someone else but still getting sent home? Hmmm... yes. You misunderstood my post. Probably worded badly on my part. I'm saying player B who lost earlier can win 3 and lose 2 in the LB and be sent home. Can you give an example? This is the scenario I'm envisioning.. WB: A > B 2:0 They both meet again later in the LB: A < B 1:2 But player A gets sent home even though his net record verse B is 3:2. My understanding was that the extended series rule prevents this. Why is standard double elimination comparatively better? your scenario is standard double elimination. the time period between both series could be hours or even days.
He is correct you just pointed out standard double elim format. The advantage of this format is that while players may have faced each other previously, both are given a clean slate. Player A facing player B should have the same format as player A facing player C, regardless of previous outcomes because both players made it to X round of X bracket. The path doesn't matter
|
On November 09 2010 17:53 Risen wrote:
Player A wins first set 2-0. Player B wins 3 in a row in their second set, but loses 2, resulting in a 3-2 loss in their second set.
Edit: This is just me being bad at getting my message across. Hopefully the example above shows you what I mean
I'm not trying to troll you but your logic doesn't make sense. Sets are Bo3. Extended series takes it to Bo7 b/c the initial set is Bo3. Using your example...
WB:
A > B
2:0
They both meet again in the LB, its an extended series b/c they already played so it is now a Bo7 with player A up 2 games:
At the start of the Bo7:
A > B
2:0
Following your statement, player B wins 3 games:
A < B
2:3
Following your statement, player B then loses 2 games:
A > B
4:3
B gets sent home. Why is that unfair or necessarily bad?
|
On November 09 2010 18:04 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:53 Risen wrote:
Player A wins first set 2-0. Player B wins 3 in a row in their second set, but loses 2, resulting in a 3-2 loss in their second set.
Edit: This is just me being bad at getting my message across. Hopefully the example above shows you what I mean I'm not trying to troll you but your logic doesn't make sense. Sets are Bo3. Extended series takes it to Bo7 b/c the initial set is Bo3. Using your example... WB: A > B 2:0 They both meet again in the LB, its an extended series b/c they already played so it is now a Bo7 with player A up 2 games: At the start of the Bo7: A > B 2:0 Following your statement, player B wins 3 games: A < B 2:3 Following your statement, player B then loses 2 games: A > B 4:3 B gets sent home. Why is that unfair or necessarily bad?
My example is how it would play out if you consider the second set a completely separate match. MLGs format says, "you lost the first set, and managed to crawl back and face him again, so instead of having a second set we're going to wave our magic wand and say that you're just continuing the same set in spite of the fact that both of you have played different people and taken different paths."
If you look at it as the first set being an entirely different event, then it is possible for player B to lose 3-2 because of the 2 point adv given to player A b/c of the first set.
|
On November 09 2010 18:04 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:53 Risen wrote:
Player A wins first set 2-0. Player B wins 3 in a row in their second set, but loses 2, resulting in a 3-2 loss in their second set.
Edit: This is just me being bad at getting my message across. Hopefully the example above shows you what I mean I'm not trying to troll you but your logic doesn't make sense. Sets are Bo3. Extended series takes it to Bo7 b/c the initial set is Bo3. Using your example... WB: A > B 2:0 They both meet again in the LB, its an extended series b/c they already played so it is now a Bo7 with player A up 2 games: At the start of the Bo7: A > B 2:0 Following your statement, player B wins 3 games: A < B 2:3 Following your statement, player B then loses 2 games: A > B 4:3 B gets sent home. Why is that unfair or necessarily bad?
because, as i've said in previous posts, the time period between the games could be days. with MLG's schedule it could have been 2 days ago that you lost to the player 2-0.
|
I'm agreeing with Risen here, in that every single match should be a separate series from any and all other series played beforehand. The only reason it goes to an extended series is because they like the way it works for Halo - and that's REALLY a different game.
If a player gets 2-0'ed and sent into the LB, he's already playing many many more games than someone who keeps winning. Why punish him further by forcing him to not only play more matches, but also have him play a B07, down 2 games, to someone he already struggled against? It seems needlessly cruel.
|
On November 09 2010 18:10 stangstang wrote:
because, as i've said in previous posts, the time period between the games could be days. with MLG's schedule it could have been 2 days ago that you lost to the player 2-0.
The interval between games is irrelevant. Many tournaments take months.
On November 09 2010 18:09 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 18:04 space_yes wrote:On November 09 2010 17:53 Risen wrote:
Player A wins first set 2-0. Player B wins 3 in a row in their second set, but loses 2, resulting in a 3-2 loss in their second set.
Edit: This is just me being bad at getting my message across. Hopefully the example above shows you what I mean I'm not trying to troll you but your logic doesn't make sense. Sets are Bo3. Extended series takes it to Bo7 b/c the initial set is Bo3. Using your example... WB: A > B 2:0 They both meet again in the LB, its an extended series b/c they already played so it is now a Bo7 with player A up 2 games: At the start of the Bo7: A > B 2:0 Following your statement, player B wins 3 games: A < B 2:3 Following your statement, player B then loses 2 games: A > B 4:3 B gets sent home. Why is that unfair or necessarily bad? My example is how it would play out if you consider the second set a completely separate match. MLGs format says, "you lost the first set, and managed to crawl back and face him again, so instead of having a second set we're going to wave our magic wand and say that you're just continuing the same set in spite of the fact that both of you have played different people and taken different paths." If you look at it as the first set being an entirely different event, then it is possible for player B to lose 3-2 because of the 2 point adv given to player A b/c of the first set.
That doesn't make sense. The whole point of not considering it as an entirely different event is the to prevent the scenario I outlined. If A gets knocked down to the LB bracket then B could only hit A if B crawled up the LB to hit A. How far B crawls up depends on how far A went in the WB before getting knocked down. The extended series rule accounts for the paths taken.
You don't consider the second set played between the players in the LB as a Bo5 when the standard sets are Bo3 b/c the following scenario could result:
WB:
A > B
2:1
LB:
A < B
1:2
Net record between A and B:
A = B
3:3
Following your logic wo/extended series A would get sent home even though they tied. This is why MLG has the extended series as Bo7. The extended series rule is designed to find the best player; your example would fail to do this b/c of the possibility of a tie.
Returning to my original example:
+ Show Spoiler +
WB:
A > B
2:0
They both meet again in the LB, its an extended series b/c they already played so it is now a Bo7 with player A up 2 games:
At the start of the Bo7:
A > B
2:0
Following your statement, player B wins 3 games:
A < B
2:3
Following your statement, player B then loses 2 games:
A > B
4:3
The net record between A and B at the end of the tournament is A > B 4:3 and B goes home. The math behind my argument is solid. It's not a question of perspective.
EDIT: clarity
|
On November 09 2010 17:25 Pyroteq wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:13 Risen wrote:
Great... let's use WCG as an example. If extended series is so great why do they use standard double elimination as opposed to extended series play? Unless they've changed their bracket system in recent years they don't. They use a retarded pool system that turns into single elimination which results in inaccurate results and good teams getting knocked out early. Show nested quote +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. Actually, Jinro does still have the advantage. If he won 2-0 he's up 2 games. He only has to win 2 more games which is essentially the same as winning one best of 3. If TT1 had won the next 2 games TT1 is now 2-2 which is the same as winning 1 best of 3, now he needs to win 2 more games to win the next best of 3 since he's in the LB. If TT1 had come into the grand final 2-1 with Jinro he'd need to win 3 games instead of 4. Jinro can still lose 2 games safely (the same as losing a best of 3), which is his "life". This also means the more consistent player of the 2 will win the grand final.
Jinro beat TT1 2-1, if he loses the first 3 games of the final he loses the tournament (2-4 on aggregate)
If he were playing someone he hadn't already beaten he would be 1 game down in the second best of 3 and still be alive.
So it's a disadvantage for him in the sense that if he hadn't beaten TT1 already he would be in a better position. The fact that he has already beaten the other player gives him a slight disadvantage relative to if he hadn't beaten him. Obviously it's still an advantage over one bo3, but going through the winners bracket undefeated should give you a whole extra life, not just an extended series advantage.
|
On November 09 2010 18:45 Wargizmo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 17:25 Pyroteq wrote:On November 09 2010 17:13 Risen wrote:
Great... let's use WCG as an example. If extended series is so great why do they use standard double elimination as opposed to extended series play? Unless they've changed their bracket system in recent years they don't. They use a retarded pool system that turns into single elimination which results in inaccurate results and good teams getting knocked out early. 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. Actually, Jinro does still have the advantage. If he won 2-0 he's up 2 games. He only has to win 2 more games which is essentially the same as winning one best of 3. If TT1 had won the next 2 games TT1 is now 2-2 which is the same as winning 1 best of 3, now he needs to win 2 more games to win the next best of 3 since he's in the LB. If TT1 had come into the grand final 2-1 with Jinro he'd need to win 3 games instead of 4. Jinro can still lose 2 games safely (the same as losing a best of 3), which is his "life". This also means the more consistent player of the 2 will win the grand final. Jinro beat TT1 2-1, if he loses the first 3 games of the final he loses the tournament (4-2 on aggregate) If he were playing someone he hadn't already beaten he would be 1 game down in the second best of 3 and still be alive. So it's a disadvantage for him in the sense that if he hadn't beaten TT1 already he would be in a better position. The fact that he has already beaten the other player gives him a slight disadvantage relative to if he hadn't beaten him. Obviously it's still an advantage over one bo3, but going through the winners bracket undefeated should give you a whole extra life, not just an extended series advantage.
Insightful post. I think you meant "2-4" aggregate instead of "4-2." MLG's tournament algorithm (double elimination extended series variation) is designed to find the player who most consistently wins i.e. the "best player." The problem is no one understands it. I think this thread is sufficient evidence of that.
|
On November 09 2010 18:54 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 18:45 Wargizmo wrote:On November 09 2010 17:25 Pyroteq wrote:On November 09 2010 17:13 Risen wrote:
Great... let's use WCG as an example. If extended series is so great why do they use standard double elimination as opposed to extended series play? Unless they've changed their bracket system in recent years they don't. They use a retarded pool system that turns into single elimination which results in inaccurate results and good teams getting knocked out early. 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. Actually, Jinro does still have the advantage. If he won 2-0 he's up 2 games. He only has to win 2 more games which is essentially the same as winning one best of 3. If TT1 had won the next 2 games TT1 is now 2-2 which is the same as winning 1 best of 3, now he needs to win 2 more games to win the next best of 3 since he's in the LB. If TT1 had come into the grand final 2-1 with Jinro he'd need to win 3 games instead of 4. Jinro can still lose 2 games safely (the same as losing a best of 3), which is his "life". This also means the more consistent player of the 2 will win the grand final. Jinro beat TT1 2-1, if he loses the first 3 games of the final he loses the tournament (4-2 on aggregate) If he were playing someone he hadn't already beaten he would be 1 game down in the second best of 3 and still be alive. So it's a disadvantage for him in the sense that if he hadn't beaten TT1 already he would be in a better position. The fact that he has already beaten the other player gives him a slight disadvantage relative to if he hadn't beaten him. Obviously it's still an advantage over one bo3, but going through the winners bracket undefeated should give you a whole extra life, not just an extended series advantage. Insightful post. I think you meant "2-4" aggregate instead of "4-2." MLG's tournament algorithm (double elimination extended series variation) is designed to find the player who most consistently wins i.e. the "best player." The problem is no one understands it. I think this thread is sufficient evidence of that.
Thanks for the correction, I've updated my original post
|
The argument was never about your math. Noone is disputing the fact that a player with aggregate 3-2 may go home. What people are disputing is what is more fair.
My post sums up my view perfectly when I say...
MLGs format says, "you lost the first set, and managed to crawl back and face him again, so instead of having a second set we're going to wave our magic wand and say that you're just continuing the same set in spite of the fact that both of you have played different people and taken different paths."
I'm arguing that the path you take to get to a certain point in the tournament matters. MLG format says it doesn't. Again, different arguments revolving around different opinions on what is fair.
|
On November 09 2010 18:58 Risen wrote:
The argument was never about your math. Noone is disputing the fact that a player with aggregate 3-2 may go home. What people are disputing is what is more fair.
My post sums up my view perfectly when I say...
MLGs format says, "you lost the first set, and managed to crawl back and face him again, so instead of having a second set we're going to wave our magic wand and say that you're just continuing the same set in spite of the fact that both of you have played different people and taken different paths."
I'm arguing that the path you take to get to a certain point in the tournament matters. MLG format says it doesn't. Again, different arguments revolving around different opinions on what is fair.
I answered your argument about relative paths in my post already. The MLG tournament format is a system designed to find the best player and takes the following as the only possible relative indication of skill:
Bo1 > Bo3 > Bo5 > Bo7
Furthermore it is b/c of the path that when two players hit a second time the series is extended to a Bo7. This way the system can confirm the integrity of its initial result. If there were no extended series and the extended series was in the finals then the player in the WB would have to lose two Bo3 in a row to lose the tournament.The extended series rule helps mitigate the disadvantages of double elimination tournaments by ensuring the losses also carry over. Additionally, where you drop out of the WB determines how far in the LB you must climb.
If you use double elimination as a tournament format there is ultimately nothing you can do to equalize the number of games played for each player. For some reason you think the player who worked their way through the losers bracket should be given equal confidence to the player who never lost a single set in the winners bracket. That is just bad heuristics especially given that all of the matches in the winners bracket occur between undefeated players.
|
On November 09 2010 19:12 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 18:58 Risen wrote:
The argument was never about your math. Noone is disputing the fact that a player with aggregate 3-2 may go home. What people are disputing is what is more fair.
My post sums up my view perfectly when I say...
MLGs format says, "you lost the first set, and managed to crawl back and face him again, so instead of having a second set we're going to wave our magic wand and say that you're just continuing the same set in spite of the fact that both of you have played different people and taken different paths."
I'm arguing that the path you take to get to a certain point in the tournament matters. MLG format says it doesn't. Again, different arguments revolving around different opinions on what is fair. I answered your argument about relative paths in my post already. The MLG tournament format is a system designed to find the best player and takes the following as the only possible relative indication of skill: Bo1 > Bo3 > Bo5 > Bo7 Furthermore it is b/c of the path that when two players hit a second time the series is extended to a Bo7. This way the system can confirm the integrity of its initial result. If there were no extended series and the extended series was in the finals then the player in the WB would have to lose two Bo3 in a row to lose the tournament.The extended series rule helps mitigate the disadvantages of double elimination tournaments by ensuring the losses also carry over. If you use double elimination as a tournament format there is ultimately nothing you can do to equalize the number of games played for each player. Remember, where you drop out of the WB determines how far in the LB you must climb.
You're not understanding. Who's to say the best player is simply the person between the two who has won? If football worked like this the 1-12 team would be in the playoffs over the 12-1 team. If college football worked like this the R1 team would be the one who beat the R2 team in spite of playing easier opponents.
My argument is that the better player is determined at the time of the set, all previous results withstanding, because they have played different players and taken a different route to get to the current set.
Edit: To truly confirm the integrity the system would have them play a fresh Bo3. If player B won that Bo3, then they would play another fresh Bo3 as player A and player B would both have won one set and they'd need a tiebreaker set.
Second Edit: I'm not saying you should equalize the games played between the two players. I'm saying each set should be played individually regardless of past performance. If player A is truly better then why did he just lose the second set?
|
On November 09 2010 19:15 Risen wrote:
You're not understanding. Who's to say the best player is simply the person between the two who has won? If football worked like this the 1-12 team would be in the playoffs over the 12-1 team. If college football worked like this the R1 team would be the one who beat the R2 team in spite of playing easier opponents.
My argument is that the better player is determined at the time of the set, all previous results withstanding, because they have played different players and taken a different route to get to the current set.
Edit: To truly confirm the integrity the system would have them play a fresh Bo3. If player B won that Bo3, then they would play another fresh Bo3 as player A and player B would both have won one set and they'd need a tiebreaker set.
No offense I understand what you're saying but its just wrong. Playing multiple Bo3 would still leave the possibilities for tied net records lololol. This isn't football; the logistics are completely different and the MLG format would be completely inappropriate for other reasons.
Imo the better player is the player who has the net winning record. When A > B 4:3 and you say B is the better player I'm really not sure what to tell you.
|
On November 09 2010 19:15 Risen wrote:
Second Edit: I'm not saying you should equalize the games played between the two players. I'm saying each set should be played individually regardless of past performance. If player A is truly better then why did he just lose the second set?
The "second set" is a subset of the aggregate set of games played between the players. Your argument doesn't make sense.
|
I need to sleep I have class in a few hours  MLG is designed to find the better player and it generally does this. I've more than established that in posts. You may not think it's fair but changing the algorithm for considerations of fairness would actually weaken the confidence in the system's final result.
|
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."
BOTH PLAYERS LOST A SERIES CAUSE THEY ARE BOTH IN LOSER BRACKET !
Do you understand that ? We're NOT talking ONLY about grand finals here !!!!!!!!!
|
I am not sure that someone mentioned it, but extended series is also extremely unfair because it gives advantage to 3rd person that is not part of the extended series. How does it happen :
Lets consider round X of losers bracket, we have two matches, winners of which will meet next round, let say A vs B and C vs D. Lets say that player B won against player A in the WB 2:0, now in LB player A wins the extended series 4:2 and player C (who didn't play extended series) won 2:0. Now player C that never met player A before has unfair advantage over him in that he had to play only 2 games in LB whereas A had to play 4 even though if he played someone else than B he would have to play only 2-3 games.
In conclusion extended series is unfair and actually introduces back part of the bracket luck that was eliminated by double elimination format. That is because player lucky enough not to play his opponent from WB is better off than someone that has to.
|
I thought it was obvious that the extended series is a really bad rule for anything except the grand finals (where it can replace the potential 2 shorter series with 1 long series where a player starts with an advantage.) First you have to realize that every losers bracket match is between 2 players who have exactly 1 series loss each. There's no reason to give an advantage to either player since both of them have the same amount of lost series. The person who won the winners bracket match already has the advantage of not needing as many series wins to win the tournament. If MLG was standard double elimination, the WB final winner could go 7-1 and still win, while someone who lost in the first round would need to go 14-1 to win.
All of these "2:0 then 1:2 and you're out" arguments are invalid because the player who lost earlier didn't lose to anybody else while the winner did. The injustice in this system is much greater, since a player who lost 0:2 in WB would effectively need to win 2 bo3s against that player to advance in the LB. Then the winner of the earlier series could effectively continue in the tournament despite effectively losing 2 series, which undermines the basic principle of double elimination and is much, much worse than someone advancing 0:2 then 2:1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
