|
Many of you guys don't realize we have two cases here, in BOTH OF WHICH the extended series is played.
REGULAR LB GAME : BOTH gamers lost one series thus being in LB. THEN they should be equal, because if not, A (who beat B once) can continue the tournament having lost one series, and having lost another one to B the second time.
GRAND FINALS : ONLY the guy from LB has lost a series, yet the same rule apply, it's like he virtually was sent in the losers bracket while never having lost. And it's obviously unfair to him.
Either keep the extended only for the grand finals, either keep it for regular LB (and i'm against it) and make it 2 bo3 in the finals. If you have BOTH, then it's bullshit.
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?
This is from LB. A is sent home cause they both lost one series in the Wb, BOTH OF THEM, then A lost ANOTHER bo3 in the loser's. Thus he lost twice, while B only lost one in the WB, then won all his games in the losers bracket, making his total score positive against EVERYONE BUT B, whom he is 2-3. Does being ONE MAP behind deserves to go home in a double elim tournament ?
On November 09 2010 18:32 space_yes wrote:
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.
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
A would get sent home being 3-3 BUT having lost one best of 3 to someone else, whereas B is 3-3, having not lost to anyone else.
What is the problem ?
|
On November 09 2010 19:42 Teddyman wrote:
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.
It's valid because the winner lost to a player who was in the winner's bracket, and thus better than the players the player from the loser's bracket had to face.
|
On November 09 2010 19:48 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 19:42 Teddyman wrote:
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. It's valid because the winner lost to a player who was in the winner's bracket, and thus better than the players the player from the loser's bracket had to face.
both lost to a player in the WB to get sent to LB.
Then, in LB, one of them loses.
Why would the double loser be better ?
|
Besides all this Advantage/Disadvantage-Stuff I dont like the rule because of the fact, that it made the GrandFinals last just 2 Games.
|
On November 09 2010 19:48 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 19:42 Teddyman wrote:
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. It's valid because the winner lost to a player who was in the winner's bracket, and thus better than the players the player from the loser's bracket had to face.
"I lost to a player who was better than the players you won against, therefore I should have an advantage!" Sorry, losing to someone who is good isn't better than winning vs someone bad.
On November 09 2010 19:51 Xanatoss wrote:
Besides all this Advantage/Disadvantage-Stuff I dont like the rule because of the fact, that it made the GrandFinals last just 2 Games.
Even without extended series a 2-0 for the WB final winner would have ended the tournament.
|
On November 09 2010 19:42 Teddyman wrote:
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.
Um shouldn't the person who won the first series have the starting advantage since they progressed further in the winner bracket than the person they beat... anyway?
|
On November 09 2010 20:01 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 19:42 Teddyman wrote:
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. Um shouldn't the person who won the first series have the starting advantage since they progressed further in the winner bracket than the person they beat... anyway?
Why ? The other one lost, too. Refer to previous posts for maths details. Should really one player having lost only 1 bo3 be out of the tournament when the other has lost 2 bo3 ?
|
If the purpose really is to make wins in the winners' bracket count more than wins in the losers' bracket, then that advantage is being applied insoncistently. You could get be one of the best players in the tournament, get to the final of the winners' bracket, lose the match, but get no advantage in the losers' bracket. Compare that to the guy who only got to round 2 of the winners' bracket, but happened to meet the guy he played in round 1 and get's a 2-1 or 2-0 headstart in a BO7. The extended series 'mechanic' simply doesn't seem to adequately achieve the goal of giving preference to players who do well in the winners' bracket.
If they really want to achieve that goal consistently, what they should do is to just give everybody from the winners' bracket a 1-0 headstart in their first series in the losers' bracket, and make it a BO5. Or give the 1-0 headstart in every losers' bracket game to whoever got further in the winners' bracket. That way, players who have done better always get an advantage, and if they go out 2-3 to somebody they beat earlier 2-0 in the tournament, they still only have a 3-3 record against them, so can't whine about being knocked out despite having a winning record.
That said, I'm not a fan of double elimination in the first place. I much prefer a larger group stage followed by a few smaller knockout stages (like the football World Cup). But that's a different topic altogether.
|
On November 09 2010 20:01 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 19:42 Teddyman wrote:
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. Um shouldn't the person who won the first series have the starting advantage since they progressed further in the winner bracket than the person they beat... anyway?
They have the advantage anyway since every match you win in the WB practically allows you to skip 2 rounds in the LB. Even IF you wanted to give some additional advantage to someone who made it further in the WB, you would have to give that to everyone and not just the people who happen to end up playing people they personally knocked down.
|
God dammit I had to check this thread one more time..
On November 09 2010 19:43 Nouar wrote:Many of you guys don't realize we have two cases here, in BOTH OF WHICH the extended series has played. REGULAR LB GAME : BOTH gamers lost one series thus being in LB. THEN they should be equal, because if not, A (who beat B once) can continue the tournament having lost one series, and having lost another one to B the second time. GRAND FINALS : ONLY the guy from LB has lost a series, yet the same rule apply, it's like he virtually was sent in the losers bracket while never having lost. And it's obviously unfair to him. Either keep the extended only for the grand finals, either keep it for regular LB (and i'm against it) and make it 2 bo3 in the finals. If you have BOTH, then it's bullshit. 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? This is from LB. A is sent home cause they both lost one series in the Wb, BOTH OF THEM, then A lost ANOTHER bo3 in the loser's. Thus he lost twice, while B only lost one in the WB, then won all his games in the losers bracket, making his total score positive against EVERYONE BUT B, whom he is 2-3. Does being ONE MAP behind deserves to go home in a double elim tournament ?
Depends on the path taken. All of the players A beats before dropping to the LB are undefeated. B would also have to beat some of those players to reach A. The system must must then evaluate who is better, A or B.
Is it really logical to throw out the previous results when the tournament exists to find the better player? To determine the better player between two players it considers all of the games. This is perfectly reasonable.
If we play two Bo5 and I win 3-0 and then you win 3-2 are you the better player simply b/c you won the second set or am I the better player b/c I'm 6-2 verse you? I would say I'm the better player b/c I pwned you 6-2.
Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 18:32 space_yes wrote:
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.
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 A would get sent home being 3-3 BUT having lost one best of 3 to someone else, whereas B is 3-3, having not lost to anyone else. What is the problem ?
The problem is that they are tied so the system is unable to evaluate who is better between the two players. When you play multiple BoX between two players the games in each BoX are a merely a subset of the aggregate number of games played between the players. Not only is the "extra" loss to the other player its really a question of how you divide the set i.e.
Considering a tie:
[W][WLLLW] // Bo1, Bo5
[WWLLLW] // Bo6?
[WWL][LLW] // Bo3, Bo3?
3:3
Extended series yields:
[WLWWWLL] // Bo7
4:3
If you and I play 10 games and we go 5-5 are you the better played simply b/c you won the 10th game? Did I really "lose" when our net-record is tied?
|
On November 09 2010 20:04 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 20:01 robertdinh wrote:On November 09 2010 19:42 Teddyman wrote:
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. Um shouldn't the person who won the first series have the starting advantage since they progressed further in the winner bracket than the person they beat... anyway? Why ? The other one lost, too. Refer to previous posts for maths details. Should really one player having lost only 1 bo3 be out of the tournament when the other has lost 2 bo3 ?
But if you lose to a guy in the winner's bracket and then in an extended series in the loser's bracket you've lost anyway... He's already proven head to head that he is the strongest player out of the 2.
|
On November 09 2010 20:08 space_yes wrote:God dammit I had to check this thread one more time.. Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 19:43 Nouar wrote:Many of you guys don't realize we have two cases here, in BOTH OF WHICH the extended series has played. REGULAR LB GAME : BOTH gamers lost one series thus being in LB. THEN they should be equal, because if not, A (who beat B once) can continue the tournament having lost one series, and having lost another one to B the second time. GRAND FINALS : ONLY the guy from LB has lost a series, yet the same rule apply, it's like he virtually was sent in the losers bracket while never having lost. And it's obviously unfair to him. Either keep the extended only for the grand finals, either keep it for regular LB (and i'm against it) and make it 2 bo3 in the finals. If you have BOTH, then it's bullshit. 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? This is from LB. A is sent home cause they both lost one series in the Wb, BOTH OF THEM, then A lost ANOTHER bo3 in the loser's. Thus he lost twice, while B only lost one in the WB, then won all his games in the losers bracket, making his total score positive against EVERYONE BUT B, whom he is 2-3. Does being ONE MAP behind deserves to go home in a double elim tournament ? Depends on the path taken. All of the players A beats before dropping to the LB are undefeated. B would also have to beat some of those players to reach A. The system must must then evaluate who is better, A or B. Is it really logical to throw out the previous results when the tournament exists to find the better player? To determine the better player between two players it considers the aggregate number of games. If we play two Bo5 and I win 3-0 then you win 3-2 are you the better player simply b/c you won the second set or am I the better player b/c I'm 6-2 verse you? I would say I'm the better player b/c I pwned you 6-2.
Then it should also take into account that you play far more relaxed in WB since you still have a wildcard, whereas in LB your life is on the line and every match is tense to the max. (you wouldnt be 6-2 but 5-3 though, do your math.)
B in the LB, could have beaten the exact same players you tossed in the LB, mind you. And then several others since he has more matches.
You should also take into account the fact that the further you go in the tournament, the more it "counts"... Is winning the first round more important than winning the LB final ? No...
So you might win 3-0 in the first round, but I might win 3-2 in the LB final or semi final.
That's having good nerves and being solid, and being able to play under pressure. If I follow your logic it should be taken into account, and a win in the far rounds of the tournament should be worth more than in the beginning, be it WB or LB.
Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 18:32 space_yes wrote:
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.
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 A would get sent home being 3-3 BUT having lost one best of 3 to someone else, whereas B is 3-3, having not lost to anyone else. What is the problem ? The problem is that they are tied so the system is unable to evaluate who is better. If you and I play 10 games and we go 5-5 are you the better played simply b/c you won the 10th game?
No, cause you lost to someone else and I didn't. So you actually have a worst record.
|
On November 09 2010 20:08 space_yes wrote:
If we play two Bo5 and I win 3-0 and then you win 3-2 are you the better player simply b/c you won the second set or am I the better player b/c I'm 6-2 verse you? I would say I'm the better player b/c I pwned you 6-2.
I would say I'm the better player because I can actually count to 5 and 3 properly :p
|
On November 09 2010 20:17 The Touch wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 20:08 space_yes wrote:
If we play two Bo5 and I win 3-0 and then you win 3-2 are you the better player simply b/c you won the second set or am I the better player b/c I'm 6-2 verse you? I would say I'm the better player b/c I pwned you 6-2.
Lol I should have to gone to bed.
EDIT: stupidity
|
On November 09 2010 20:24 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 20:17 The Touch wrote:On November 09 2010 20:08 space_yes wrote:
If we play two Bo5 and I win 3-0 and then you win 3-2 are you the better player simply b/c you won the second set or am I the better player b/c I'm 6-2 verse you? I would say I'm the better player b/c I pwned you 6-2.
I would say I'm the better player because I can actually count to 5 properly :p No you really can't count. Major fail bro: Bo5 1: W,W,W I take the series 3-0 Bo5 2: W,L,W,L,W I take the series 3-2 Now add them up what do you get?
But you said he won the second series not you...
|
On November 09 2010 20:24 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 20:17 The Touch wrote:On November 09 2010 20:08 space_yes wrote:
If we play two Bo5 and I win 3-0 and then you win 3-2 are you the better player simply b/c you won the second set or am I the better player b/c I'm 6-2 verse you? I would say I'm the better player b/c I pwned you 6-2.
I would say I'm the better player because I can actually count to 5 properly :p No you really can't count. Major fail bro: Bo5 1: W,W,W I take the series 3-0 Bo5 2: W,L,W,L,W I take the series 3-2 Now add them up what do you get?
Ok, you're dumb. In this case you WON BOTH series ahah. The problem is if you LOSE the second one, like you said in your posts 
Of course in the bo5 the problem is scaled up. But we're in bo3, and the difference might only be one map. You shouldn't go out in a double elim tourney when you're only 1 map behind 1 person, and that person lost other games, too.
|
|
|
I don't like it.
Imo the rule is applied inconsistently. Extended series is applied in both a remath in the LB between 2 players that have already dropped a series, but also in the grand finals where only 1 player has lost a series. That makes no sense whatsoever.
I also dislike it because it makes the grand finals a very boring series. The WB finals is generally the most interesting match out there. Most of the time the grand finals ends up being one-sided rape making me think why they even bother with the losers bracket to begin with.
I guess I don't like the double elimination as a whole really  . Wouldn't mind if they got rid of it completely.
|
Perhaps, but you shouldn't ONLY look at the head to head record, it's not a 1v1 but a tournament, and your famed player has lost other games besides this one. Else he wouldn't be in the loser's bracket.
Ignoring them and only looking at head to head record in a full pledged bracket is not the way to go.
|
I'm leaving my original post as is ^ ^ but you get the idea.
I take the first set 3-0, then lose 2-3. Overall I'm 5-3..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
