EPTOnce you are in the grand finals, bo7 is as good as double elim.... far more exciting to watch and far better for the players than coming all the way thru the tourney then winning a final that was bo3, where you can just cheese the player form the losers bracket for the first series, since you have no fear of going out.
MLG extended Series Poll - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
Once you are in the grand finals, bo7 is as good as double elim.... far more exciting to watch and far better for the players than coming all the way thru the tourney then winning a final that was bo3, where you can just cheese the player form the losers bracket for the first series, since you have no fear of going out. | ||
|
The Touch
United Kingdom667 Posts
On November 09 2010 21:07 Kazang wrote: 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. And without the extended series, two best of threes, that might have ended with both players winning one game each 2-1, would see the 'better player' eliminated because he has lost two series and his opponent only lost once. They would be 1 series each against each other, 3-3 on games (so there's no pressing reason for the 'better player' to remain in the tournament) but the 'better player' also lost another series. That situation is also not fair on the player being eliminated because the 'better player' cheese rushed game 7. I still think the best solution is just giving players who get further in the winners' bracket a 1-0 lead and making the game a BO5. That way they could never go out to players despite beating them on games played (which seems to be the most argued reason for the extended series), but also makes winners' brackets wins count for more in general. A 2-0 win in the BO3, translated into a 1-0 headstart in a BO5, which you lost 2-3 (winning only one actual game), translates into being eliminated despite going 3-3 with the player who knocked you out, but you lost two series and he only lost one. The argument that you were the better player wouldn't hold water, since you were even with each other on games played, but you lost two series compared to your opponent's one. You earlier win gave you an advantage, and you can't blame the system for you failing to make that advantage count. You lost a series twice, fair and square, and deserve the be eliminated at that point. | ||
|
Sahand
United Kingdom114 Posts
- player X loses to player Z in the upper bracket; player X moves to the lower bracket. - during this game player Y moves through to the next round in the lower bracket by beating another opponent. - player X then loses to player Y in a normal best of 3, and even though he'd previously beaten him in the tournament he is now eliminated from the tournament due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. so how exactly is this fair? ps. if anyone replies with hes beaten him once, he should be able to do it again is stupid | ||
|
KahunaNui
Spain257 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On November 09 2010 22:10 Sahand wrote: - so player X beats player Y in the upper bracket; player Y moves to lower bracket. - player X loses to player Z in the upper bracket; player X moves to the lower bracket. - during this game player Y moves through to the next round in the lower bracket by beating another opponent. - player X then loses to player Y in a normal best of 3, and even though he'd previously beaten him in the tournament he is now eliminated from the tournament due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. so how exactly is this fair? ps. if anyone replies with hes beaten him once, he should be able to do it again is stupid Because their score is 1:1 but player X has also lost to someone else and Y did not. So in your example there is actually no unfairness at all. Some unfairness might be seen if the total map score is 3:2 for the player X, but this has been addressed previously. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On November 09 2010 22:10 Sahand wrote: - so player X beats player Y in the upper bracket; player Y moves to lower bracket. - player X loses to player Z in the upper bracket; player X moves to the lower bracket. - during this game player Y moves through to the next round in the lower bracket by beating another opponent. - player X then loses to player Y in a normal best of 3, and even though he'd previously beaten him in the tournament he is now eliminated from the tournament due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. so how exactly is this fair? Because player Y just lost in the winners bracket whilst player X just won in the lower bracket. So player Y wasn't good enough to advance in the winners, whilst player X has proven he is the best eliminated player from the previous round, therefore he gets a second chance. Player X could well have just played a player he just beat from the round before! He could BE player Y just 1 round earlier! | ||
|
DoubleLariat
Canada190 Posts
1) Fair advantage to the winner in the total number of games played between player A and B The extended series ensures that the the player that in fact got the most wins moves forward to the next round. Player A wins the first series 2-1 In the extended series format, Player B still needs to take more games away from player A to actually move forward. Fair as between the two players as the players with the most wins continues. 2) Unfair advantage to the winner in relation to all other players in the losers bracket. Player A was knocked down from the winner's bracket. When Player C plays Player D (who did not meet in the winner's bracket) both players only have one chance to try and continue on through the loser's bracket. Player A, when facing player B, gains an unfair advantage over both Player C and Player D as he has a better chance of moving through the loser's bracket. TL:DR Take your pick and decide whether you want to favour the individual matchup fairness or the overall tournament fairness. | ||
|
Special Endrey
Germany1929 Posts
| ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
If they meet again in LB and A loses, he lost twice, so he's out. B lost only once (against A, ok, He then tied it up), so he continues. Stop considering individual maps ! A bo3 is the basic counting unit in this kind of double bracket, individual maps are counted in group stages for win/loss averages and that's all. If you DO count them, you end up with someone being down one single map against a single opponent being out of both brackets, which is much more unfair than throwing someone out who lost two bo3 (even if he's slightly ahead in total map count against one of the two opponents he lost to. | ||
|
Weasel-
Canada1556 Posts
| ||
|
phantaxx
United States201 Posts
-Player A loses to player B in the winners bracket -Player A wins his/her next match in the losers bracket -Player A's next opponent will be the loser of B vs C in the winners bracket In this situation player A will be much better off if C loses because then player A won't have to start at a disadvantage. Player A's advantages or disadvantages should not be determined by factors out of his/her control. | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
Extended series basically turns this from Street Fighter suddenly into Killer Instinct! It's unfair because the rules suddenly get switched around just because you played the guy before in the tournament. On top of that, it isn't any good for the viewers because the chance of a comeback are next to nil with that kind of deficit. | ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
On November 10 2010 11:55 Ownos wrote: I thought the whole point was so that players in double elimination essentially had "two lives" Extended series basically turns this from Street Fighter suddenly into Killer Instinct! That's for the finals, where they have to play 2 Bo3 unless the player in the winner's bracket wins the first one. It makes perfect sense there, but not anywhere else. | ||
|
DaRkFrosT
United States407 Posts
| ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On November 10 2010 12:04 DaRkFrosT wrote: If the extended series gets eliminated, it should just be a single elimination tournament. Uh, do you have any idea what defines double elimination? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-elimination_tournament can help you out, since you seem confused. Note: It doesn't even mention extended series in the entire article (as far as I can tell). It is NOT a common rule. | ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
On November 09 2010 15:44 space_yes wrote: No. Double elimination means you have to lose twice to be eliminated. Is it fair to win every game and make it to the finals then lose once to someone who already lost a series and be knocked out of the tournament? How is that fair? actually the player who came up from the losers bracket would have to win 2 series as the winner hadn't lost yet, because as you said it's double elimination. what does this have to do with the extended series rule????????? | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
With unfairness you can argue that it is fair because it is the same for everyone, and this is obviously true, but that is just obvious stuff. When people say it is unfair it's just that in the isolated event of this happening to someone he is put at a disadvantage against the players who don't have to go through the extended series. In that sense it is unfair. | ||
|
thinkzerg
Canada162 Posts
| ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On November 10 2010 12:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Imagine playing the world cup of football losing 0-3 to someone in group stage and meeting them in the finals again. According to the rules you would have to start 0-3 because you already played. (Or 0-1 and have to win 2 matches). These rules just make no sense to me and I also don't think they increase the excitement of the event enough to justify such unfairness. With unfairness you can argue that it is fair because it is the same for everyone, and this is obviously true, but that is just obvious stuff. When people say it is unfair it's just that in the isolated event of this happening to someone he is put at a disadvantage against the players who don't have to go through the extended series. In that sense it is unfair. Exactly, Nazgul. And when you have a player like EG.iNkA come out and say 'This rule is bullshit.' AFTER he came back from a 0-2 deficit to win 4-3, you know it is pretty bad. A lesser player would say something like "No, it's pretty fine. I did it!" He had the balls to say, 'No, this is fucked up, and I say that even after I've done it'. | ||
|
red.venom
United States4651 Posts
| ||
| ||
