EPTThe tekken finals is formatted that way. It's a best of 5, 3 round matches, and the winner is put up only 1 game.
MLG extended Series Poll - Page 18
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SwiftSpear
Canada355 Posts
The tekken finals is formatted that way. It's a best of 5, 3 round matches, and the winner is put up only 1 game. | ||
|
Teddyman
Finland362 Posts
On November 11 2010 04:18 Liquid`Tyler wrote: It's proven to the bracket. Of course I understand the limitations of a bo3 when it comes to knowing the players' skills. But when playing in a bracket, the guy who wins the match, whether it's bo1 or bo7, is considered the better person by the bracket, so he advances. For single elim, the bracket says "ok you lost to this guy in a match, losing to him means you're worse than him, only one of you can go on so he does, you're out" and for double elim the bracket says "you lost to this guy, you're worse than him, but I want to see if you're better than anyone else, go play in the losers bracket" If the first bo3 proves that the winner is better, doesn't the second bo3 in a normal double elimination bracket disprove that and say that they are equal? In that case one of them has lost another match and one has not so we know who we can eliminate. If the loser meets anybody else from the round that the winner lost in, he will have to win less games. Those players have proven to the bracket system that they are as good as the winner, why don't they get any benefit from that? The extended series doesn't need to reward earlier performance to have a purpose... how is playing a regular bo7 rewarding earlier performance? The extended series throws away any bias about which games came earlier or later (something that a 2nd bo3 doesn't do) and allows you to play a straight up bo7. The bracket just wants to know which one of you is truly better and I think from your first paragraph we agree that a bo7 is better than a bo3 for that. Looking at double elim without extended series, the situation is like this: if the guy who won the first time is going to win again, he's going to need 4 total wins. He is always going to have to win a bo7 between himself and his opponent if he wants to survive. His opponent can advance by losing a bo5, or by tying 2-2 or 3-3. So when MLG speaks of "why should we punish the guy who won in the winners bracket" this is what they're talking about. So they put it on fair terms by making both of them have to win a bo7 to advance. They are not giving the guy who won in winners bracket an advantage at all. They're taking away the advantage of the guy who lost in winners bracket and making it fair. All this "fair bo7" talk is quite misleading since it's not a bo7. It starts as a bo7, then after one player wins 2 games, they call it and both play an unknown number of matches not knowing if they will ever resume the series. If they eventually do, the losing player will have played more matches and suddenly become more fatigued in the middle of this "series." Here's a thought experiment to the proponents of the extended series: it's OSL, and Flash and Jaedong are in the same group in the group stage. Stork is in another group, and all 3 advance with Flash beating Jaedong 2-0. If Flash and Jaedong meet in the finals, should Flash start 2-0 up in a bo7? If he meets Stork, should it start from 0-0? What you are arguing is that Jaedong needs to prove he's the better player by resuming the previous series and winning 4 games out of 5. | ||
|
Moragon
United States355 Posts
| ||
|
Alamire
Australia19 Posts
At this point, there is no right or wrong, only two ways of doing it. If you listen to the arguments on SotG, they essentially come down to "I think it should be like this." On the podcast, those opposed to the extended series argue that it shouldn't be used because each meeting is a discrete event. They don't provide any substantial argument as to *why* it's a discrete event. So, essentially, you like one or the other. I think it likely that a lot of people's reactions are conditioned by what they're used to and that if the extended series weren't something that people knew to be cut and pasted from Halo competition (where it makes neither more nor less sense) then people would not have such a problem with it. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On November 12 2010 05:32 Moragon wrote: Its better than the alternatives in a double elimination tournament. If you just do two best of 3's people with a winning record against a player can be eliminated by them. The formal rule in these kinds of matches is that the first player to win X games wins. So with two BO3's the only two possible outcomes are 2-0 and 1-1 in terms of match wins. The structure can't possibly punish the player who won more matches, though it can possibly punish the player who won his match faster (in less games played). The MLG way, it's just decided that the player who won the WB match is rewarded not only by progressing in the tournament, but on top of that he's arbitrarily given a massive advantage if he ever faces his opponent again - how on earth is that not an overkill? This is especially true for BO3 - claiming that a player who wins his match 2-0 is decidedly better than a player who wins the next match 2-1 is far from an accurate estimation. The original idea of double elimination is to give each player an additional "life", nothing less and certainly nothing more. So if you lose 2 matches, it makes sense that you drop out of the tournament regardless of whom you lost to, or in which order. | ||
|
Pinski
United States126 Posts
On November 12 2010 05:55 Moragon wrote: With or without the extended series rematches are bad entertainment. It adds an element of predictability that you dont have when you only play new matches between different players. Why do you think none of the major televised sports use double elimination? Uhhh, because they have a group stage before the playoffs, so there's no point in a double elimination when there was already a group stage before hand to decide who's good enough for the playoffs/brackets? There is no major televised sport that uses a pure-bracket system. They all have games before that decide who gets into the bracket and where they are seeded. | ||
|
The Touch
United Kingdom667 Posts
On November 12 2010 01:37 Dagon wrote: Nony himself had a good argument in the SotG podcast.. It may not be fair to start wit a deficit in the second match against a player, but it îs even more unfair to win 2-0 the first time and then lose 1-2 in LB, and still be eliminated even though you have 3-2 overall against that player.. Extended series makes the luck of the draw much less influential.. And no, it îs not more "accurate" ranking method, because bracket systems do not rank the skill of players. Just like day9 said, it relies on probabillities, so no acurate ranking of any kind îs achieved.. The ONLY tournament system that estimates rankings and skill values îs Round Robin.. In current sc2, playing RR with ALL matches as bo9 with all maps would be the most effective, though it would take months.. And at that point you essentially have a league instead of a cup anyway, so you might as well just make it take all year like regular sports seasons, with games one day a week. Actually that's something I wouldn't mind watching. | ||
|
Nick.TNA
209 Posts
| ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
| ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On June 06 2011 03:15 nihlon wrote: I think it's somewhat fair but it's horrible for the viewers. The further you go in the competition, the more likely this rule will be put into effect and essentially turn a exciting serie into a boring one where one player have to pull off a miracle to win. I hate it. Agreed, it is the best way to determine the winner of the tournament but also is really lame for the viewers. | ||
|
Chocobo
United States1108 Posts
On June 06 2011 03:18 dcemuser wrote: Agreed, it is the best way to determine the winner of the tournament but also is really lame for the viewers. 1) It is not the best way to determine the tournament winner. - When two players meet in the winners bracket, the winner's reward is that he gets to continue in the winners bracket. This means that he has to win fewer matchups to advance to the finals, and he means he still has two matchup losses to go before he's out of the tournament. - The loser is punished by going to the losers bracket. This means he must win nearly twice as many matchups to advance to the finals, which means many more chances to get eliminated. He cannot afford to lose, a single matchup loss means elimination from the tournament. - In extended series, luck becomes a HUGE factor in deciding who advances, and how far they get. Some players will fall to the losers bracket, advance for a while, and then and get fresh 0-0 series against a new opponent. Other players will fall to losers, run into a rematch, and have to overcome an 0-2 advantage. Luck determines all of this. - Some players will fall from winners bracket and have fresh 0-0 matches. Others will fall from winners in the same round, but have 2-0 advantages because they lucked into a rematch. Why should luck be such a huge factor in a tournament? Players lucky enough to avoid rematches (or lucky enough to fall into one if they need it) will advance further. Unluckier players won't advance. Why do we want luck in tournaments? - The traditional double elimination bracket has worked just fine for decades, and does not have this problem. The only drawback to the standard format is "what if Idra loses to MMA 0-2, then defeats him 2-1 in a rematch? why should Idra advance by going 2-3 overall?" The answer to this is that late-round matchups matter more, and it's unfortunate that MMA had his best games early instead of late. 2) It is completely awful for the viewers. - It's confusing as hell. Some matchups are best of 5, others are best of 7? Some start 0-0, some start 2-0, some start 1-2? People don't understand the varying rules or why there's a starting score, people think they missed the first couple of matches or that there were technical difficulties and the score is wrong, it's just a mess. - The problem becomes worse and worse in later rounds of the tournament. Thorzain starts 0-2 against MC, who naturally wins. MC starts 0-2 against Idra. If Idra wins, he starts 0-2 against MMA. Nearly every matchup will begin completely lopsided. (Maybe Idra will get lucky and not face MMA next, get an 0-0 match and win it, then start 0-2 in the finals. Hooray, luck just determined who is in the finals AND who wins the finals!) - Due to every matchup being lopsided, the winner is virtually already known ahead of time. Comebacks from a huge disadvantage like this will almost never happen. 3) The advantages are slim to none. With allllllllll of these many unfair luck-based viewer-unfriendly pre-determined matchups, what advantage is gained? We get to avoid players saying "I beat you in the early round but you beat me in the finals, it should be tied up instead of you advancing, wahhhhhhhh". Avoiding whiny complaints is worthless in my book. | ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
Simply, if you play someone again, you have to win two Bo3's and they have to win 1. Without some kind of system, it would kind of break the current MLG bracket setup I feel in terms of fairness, but I think the Extended Series Rule is too much of a handicap. | ||
|
Joseph123
Bulgaria1144 Posts
so when mc owns him 4 games in a row it will be so much better than only 2 games ) but anyway this rule is just bad lol | ||
|
Nabes
Canada1800 Posts
| ||
|
edc
United States666 Posts
| ||
|
Frozenserpent
United States143 Posts
On June 06 2011 04:55 Mordiford wrote: I prefer the system that the IPL uses. Simply, if you play someone again, you have to win two Bo3's and they have to win 1. Without some kind of system, it would kind of break the current MLG bracket setup I feel in terms of fairness, but I think the Extended Series Rule is too much of a handicap. The IPL's system is how a regular double elimination system without extended series works. One consequence of the extended series is that games earlier on are more important than in a regular system. An example of this can be seen by looking at the top player from each pool faces each other in winner's bracket. The winner's semis are incredibly important. If you win, you are guaranteed top 3. If you lose, you must win 2 sets in order to make top 3. And then, if you want to win the tournament, you have to eventually beat the person you lost to with a deficit in the game score. | ||
|
dibban
Sweden1279 Posts
| ||
|
kYem
United Kingdom412 Posts
On June 06 2011 04:55 Mordiford wrote: I prefer the system that the IPL uses. Simply, if you play someone again, you have to win two Bo3's and they have to win 1. Without some kind of system, it would kind of break the current MLG bracket setup I feel in terms of fairness, but I think the Extended Series Rule is too much of a handicap. It's exactly the same rule pretty much, (except then the first result is 2-1, otherwise its identical ) | ||
|
Mithriel
Netherlands2969 Posts
It is "fair", but also makes follow up matches further down on champions day less exciting due to the advantage one person already has from day1. | ||
|
Benga
Korea (South)471 Posts
| ||
| ||
