The winner should get an advantage, it's called the double elim, winner/losers bracket system. Extended series is yet another advantage to the winner, which doesn't make sense and is unfair.

Misanthrope

United States924 Posts

June 05 2011 21:10 GMT

#384

Let me be completely honest, I don't care AT ALL about fairness. I care about the spectacle. I want a full finals at MLG. Extended series is just lame. Hell they can use the rule, but don't display the previous victories. It's just lame, and explaining it to people who are trying to get into starcraft makes the whole tournament scene seem more complicated than the game itself. >.<

The KY

United Kingdom6252 Posts

June 05 2011 21:11 GMT

#385

Double elimination tournament.

Series are Bo3.

Two players meet for the second time, both having been eliminated once in the double elimination tournament.

One player has to lose two more Bo3s to be eliminated, meaning he has lost 3 Bo3s in a double elimination tournament.

Someone explain that.

Of course there's a kind of twisted logic in it; it's still double elim because it's a Bo7. But it's only a Bo7 if you've made up a bizarre rule where you've decided to mesh two Bo3s. Extended series is only justifed by itself...there is no reason to have it. No one else in the world does that I know of. Like in the Champions League, if Arsenal beat Inter 4-3 in the groups and they meet again in the semis, they don't play it from that score. If Inter beat Arsenal in the semis 3-2 there's no one saying 'but both teams have six goals against eachother!'. Because that's not how tournaments work. If you meet again later it's because you both earned that spot.

MLGLee once said that MLG want to take a players tournament results as a whole, which is why you have extended series; to have a memory of the players performance. Well that's a total contradiction; for extended series to work you have to ignore the fact that both players have lost a Bo3.

RaLakedaimon

United States1564 Posts

June 05 2011 21:14 GMT

#386

Gotta agree with everyone else I've never liked extended series rules that MLG uses, just doesn't seem fair to the person working there butt off to get up to that spot where it applies. With every MLG event this gets brought up and I personally don't know anyone that likes the rule so they should do a general consensus and apply the change because I doubt it would be in favor of it.

dAPhREAk

Nauru12397 Posts

June 05 2011 21:35 GMT

#387

with extended series you get to see epic comebacks though. something to consider. =)

Redmark

Canada2129 Posts

June 05 2011 21:38 GMT

#388

On June 06 2011 06:35 dAPhREAk wrote:
with extended series you get to see epic comebacks though. something to consider. =)

If you gave TLO 5 nukes and put him in 1v7 Insane AI you could probably get epic comebacks. That's not the point of competition. It should come naturally.

Stratos_speAr

United States6959 Posts

June 05 2011 21:39 GMT

#389

I'm gonna have to say, the extended series made MC's annihilation of Idra all the sweeter.

Nevy

Canada169 Posts

June 05 2011 21:39 GMT

#390

You'd see more comebacks without the extended series rule imo. The way it is now is so soul crushing on the player on the losing end of this rule.

Surili

United Kingdom1141 Posts

June 05 2011 21:39 GMT

#391

Mine was the 1337 no vote.

Pity disappointed in the fact that the winners have an advantage twice, seems unfair.

ScythedBlade

308 Posts

June 05 2011 21:42 GMT

#392

Think of it as better than single elimination but worse than pure double elimination. It's good.

There's no "fairness" or "unfairness". As people stated, there's a reason why there's double elimination to make it so that the first game counts.

What TL'ers have to realize is that there IS no real definition of "fair".

And besides ... MC 4-2 Idra from a 0-2 Idra.

mprs

Canada2933 Posts

June 05 2011 21:43 GMT

#393

seriously... every frigin MLG we do this.

It is NOT unfair. If you beat a guy before, you get that advantage carried over. Just look at how you worded that first poll entry. "The winner gets an advantage". WINNER. ADVANTAGE.

Anyway is this fair? Yes.

Is it good to players? The winning ones, yes!

Is it good for the spectators? No because sometimes the match is an uphill and it feels like the results that someone could want won't be realistic.

IMO if they remove extended series, they should introduce bo5s into the later stages and a bo7 for the finals.

Blasphemi

United Kingdom980 Posts

June 05 2011 21:45 GMT

#394

There should be a lot more Bo5's. I don't like the fact that it's still Bo3's so late in the tournament.

Chocobo

United States1108 Posts

June 05 2011 21:49 GMT

#395

Anyone who thinks extended series is fair, or thinks that it's better than regular double elimination, is someone who does not understand the problems that it causes.

Yes, standard double elim does have one minor flaw. "I beat him, then he beats me, why does he get to advance". The answer is simply that later round matchup matter more, but it's not literally 100% perfectly fair.

Extended series fixes that, but introduces WAYYYYY MORE FLAWS. It makes the losers bracket irrelevant since no one will ever climb out of it to win if it requires going 4-0 or 4-1 to advance because you started at an 0-2 deficit. It basically turns it into a single elim tournament.

It creates completely unfair situations purely based on luck in the brackets. Suppose you and your friend make it to winners semifinals, and you both lose. You fall to losers and get fresh 0-0 match, your friend has a rematch where he starts up 2-0. How is this fair?

Suppose you and your friend stumble early, but go on a winning streak through losers bracket. You get lucky and always face new opponents getting fair 0-0 matches, but your friend runs into an 0-2 rematch and despite winning 3 games out of 5 in the rematch, your friend is eliminated. In both of these examples, pure luck in brackets determines who goes farther.

Worst problem of all: EVERY LATE MATCHUP IS A REMATCH. The losers bracket finals will almost always be a rematch, and will have plenty of rematches preceding it. The grand finals will always 100% be a rematch.

This means the vast majority of the most important matches of the tournament will have nearly predetermined outcomes, because one player will always have a huge advantage over the other before the game begins. YOU CANNOT TELL ME THIS IS A GOOD THING.

It ruins the tournament and creates all kinds of stupid problems, all for the sake of solving a very minor problem that wasn't a big deal in the first place.

HeadDesk

United States171 Posts

June 05 2011 21:51 GMT

#396

I think that it should be a true double elimination format.

When you are in the loser's bracket working your way up - you run into other people that have lost as well.

No one should be at a disadvantage either way. They both got to this point in time from various paths (they both lost at some point) - and they should both have equal opportunity to move on (ie. both start at 0-0). It absolutely should not matter that they played each other before.

From every double elimination tournament (even ones in l real life sports: soccer, baseball) that I have seen - it is treated as a brand new event.

Every spot in a tournament is an individual event. No one should automatically have an advantage or disadvantage - both should have an equal opportunity to move on.

Chocobo

United States1108 Posts

June 05 2011 21:53 GMT

#397

On June 06 2011 06:43 mprs wrote:
seriously... every frigin MLG we do this.

It is NOT unfair. If you beat a guy before, you get that advantage carried over. Just look at how you worded that first poll entry. "The winner gets an advantage". WINNER. ADVANTAGE.

Anyway is this fair? Yes.

Is it good to players? The winning ones, yes!

Winners already get a huge advantage in a double elimination tournament. This additional large advantage makes it nearly impossible for anyone to win coming out of the losers bracket. Might as well just have a single elimination tourney where the winner gets the advantage of continuing, and the loser is simply eliminated.

It's "fair" in that everyone entering the tourney has an equal chance to get screwed over or get advantages later due to luck.

But if you want to have a real double elimination tournament where each player gets two chances... you have to give every player two fair chances (instead of giving some one fair chance and one 0-2 chance)... and it's preferable if you do it without ruining every single late-round matchup.for the viewers.

zaii

Guam2611 Posts

June 05 2011 21:58 GMT

#398

yes idra showed that extended series is unfair!

HeadDesk

United States171 Posts

June 05 2011 21:58 GMT

#399

Winners in a double elimination tournament get an advantage because they have to play less games to keep going. You stay in the winner's bracket for as long as possible.

Then.. once you get to the loser's bracket - it's much harder to win (unless you hop into the Loser's right at the end of the tournie).

The extended series adds a more unnecessary disadvantage for the person who lost earlier.

Each event in the Loser's Bracket is an individual event - each player should have equal opportunity to move on (ie. start 0-0 in the series).

mprs

Canada2933 Posts

June 05 2011 22:01 GMT

#400

On June 06 2011 06:53 Chocobo wrote:

Show nested quote +

Don't get me wrong. As a spectator, I prefer to have fresh starts because there is a more of "it can go either way". If I was to construct a slippery slope argument, I would say "who would want to watch a match when someone is up 20-0 and only needs to get 22". I would love to see the grudge carried over (like the Idra vs MC earlier match) but with a fresh start.