|
On June 06 2011 05:06 Frozenserpent wrote:
One consequence of the extended series is that games earlier on are more important than in a regular system.
.
but winning early is already more important, because by going into loser/lower bracket earlier means you have to play more games overall.
On June 06 2011 05:07 kYem wrote:Show nested quote +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 )
your both wrong, the rule you are quoting is the finals, which is a result of double elimination requiring everyone to lose twice to go out. the person coming from the upper bracket hasnt yet lost a game, so they play a best of X as the last 2 left in, if lower players loses he has lost 2 series and is out, if the top player loses he has only lost once, so 2 people still remain in the tourney
|
|
|
Unfair advantage for the winner (1337)
haha
|
i just love the rule i really love it
its not fair for ME if you beat him saturday 2-0 then lose sunday 0-2 and you are out ...
with this rule even 1-4 players will fight for their life to make a win even a 2-0 will be tried harder then "ok i lead 2-0 play it safe"
|
It's not the worst rule but I'd prefer it if it didn't exist. It makes later games in the tournament less exciting as one player will start with an advantage if they played earlier.
|
Best rule is to simply make the grand finals require the person from the loser's bracket win 2 BOX and the winner's bracket champion only one. Leave everything else a single BOX. I'd say MLG should make both the winners'/losers' brackets BO5 for the semifinals/finals and the grand finals two BOX (not sure what would be the best one there).
|
The biggest problem I have with the idea of it, is that by the end of the tournament, it's nearly inevitable that people will be playing vs players that they have played against. It's just more likely.
In my eyes, the finals of a tournament are a very big deal, completely separate from all other events. It should also be appropriately epic in magnitude. Last MLG we got a finals that at shortest could be 2 games long, that alone shouldn't even be allowed.
The possibility of turning a finals into a terrible struggle for one player, and a walk in the park for the other is just wrong.
|
I would agree to put the winner 1-0 in a BO5 if the winner won before.
|
On November 08 2010 06:14 Kennigit wrote:
It's "fair" but like Huko said, it shouldn't be used....just don't like it :\
How is it fair?
Lets just say that there are two players in a showmatch. They have to play 2 best of 3's to see who wins. That is completely fair right?
Now let's say once again that there are two players in a showmatch. They play a bo3. Now the player who lost still has to win 4 games no matter what (2 bo3s) and the player who won still has to win 2 games, except now they have an unfair advantage, because they can win just 1 game per bo3 series, and still win.
So really the player who lost the first bo3 may have won 2 of the 3 bo3's (or boX... either way that's what they are obviously playing) except they ended up losing. I don't see how that is fair.
|
Why is it unfair? If player are informed about it, and they know full well before playing, what's so unfair about it? But N3rV[Green] has a point
EDIT: I misunderstood what guy above was saying, he is right. But that puts even greater importance on winning every single match, it's a level playing field still
|
|
|
I hate it, but I do like the idea that players can go into a loser's bracket for a second-chance, which promises more interesting games. Perhaps the entire reason for extended series is to mitigate the forgiving state of the bracket composition. Then again, that would just be nonsensical, and really does, in the end, give an unfair advantage to the winner.
|
My statement from the MLG thread:
If MC has the balls to say IdrA's wins were a mistake, then he should be forced to definitively prove it. There have been many arguments about it, and most have them have gone so back and forth that eventually it just comes down to two different styles, just like different cultures and religions. There is no way to prove that one is better than another.
However, the semifinals and finals should be bo5 and bo7 respectively with no extended series. They are the pinnacle moment of the event and should be played out to their fullest.
|
It's fine with me in a straight double elim winners/losers bracket, but it's just terrible when including pool play. I'm okay with forcing someone who was dropped from winners to losers to have to really prove they're better and not just equal to the person who sent them down, but the lone impact of the pool results should be where you enter the field.
|
It's horrible, it makes for so many uninteresting series because one player has little hope.
|
They should cut the extended series out after a certain point in the tournament, imo.
|
On June 06 2011 05:39 Clicker wrote:
They should cut the extended series out after a certain point in the tournament, imo.
That would be a terrible solution... all of a sudden people would be worse off for having placed one spot higher, and then having to go against someone they beat earlier without the advantage. That would simply make no sense... why did you.... wat?
|
On June 06 2011 05:35 DeltruS wrote:
My statement from the MLG thread:
If MC has the balls to say IdrA's wins were a mistake, then he should be forced to definitively prove it. There have been many arguments about it, and most have them have gone so back and forth that eventually it just comes down to two different styles, just like different cultures and religions. There is no way to prove that one is better than another.
However, the semifinals and finals should be bo5 and bo7 respectively with no extended series. They are the pinnacle moment of the event and should be played out to their fullest.
Either extended series is right or it's wrong. If it's right why would you not have it at the end? If it's wrong why would you have it at the main tournament?
It's not a fucking religious argument. This is like saying "Delta Quadrant is imbalanced or it isn't, it's just style".
|
Scenario 1
Game 1: 2-0 (or 2-1)
Extended series: 2-0 (or 2-1)
Final score: 4-0
Equivalent to winning 2 Bo3. Best player wins.
Scenario 2
Game 1: 2-0 (or 2-1)
Extended series: 2-3
Final Score: 4-3
Equivalent to winning 2 Bo3 and losing 1 Bo3. Best player wins.
Scenario 3
Game 1: 2-0 (or 2-1)
Extended series: 0-4 (or 1-4)
Final Score: 3-4
Equivalent to winning 1 Bo3 and losing 2 Bo3. Best player wins.
Extended series works
Its equivalent to playing 2 or 3 Bo3
|
err... If it's MC vs IdrA, I dont mind the extended series 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
