EPTMLG extended Series Poll - Page 21
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Qaatar
1409 Posts
| ||
|
how2TL
1197 Posts
On June 06 2011 07:05 Qaatar wrote: Let's look at this from a practical standpoint: has there ever been a situation where the "inferior" player won because he got lucky with an earlier series, then barely squeaked by in the later extended series 4-3? If there hasn't, then I'm indifferent. From Incontrol/TLO, Naniwa/Kiwikaki, Thorzain/Select, MC/Thorzain, MC/Idra...there are no upsets here - the players who should have won, did win. I suppose my position is as such because I don't care about underdogs winning - as long as the better player wins, I'm fine. One of the advantages of extended series is that the superior player is more likely to go through. This makes sense, since the better player goes through in a best of 7 more often than a best of 3. | ||
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
| ||
|
zaii
Guam2611 Posts
On June 06 2011 07:20 Soap wrote: People dislike this because looks arbitrary, some players play under different rules because of reasons beyond their control. It'll just take some time to get used. totally agree! | ||
|
Phenny
Australia1435 Posts
| ||
|
Zechs
United Kingdom321 Posts
| ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3890 Posts
On June 06 2011 08:36 Zechs wrote: MLG's entire format seems like it's designed to give advantages to the guy who won last time. The bracket system is just flat-out bizarre, making it near impossible for someone to come out of the open bracket and extended series is so contrived it's just stupid. it was designed to keep the halo players like tsquared on top forever, can't give people 100,000 dollar contracts, and then put there face on dr.pepper bottles and then tell dr pepper tsquared hasn't qualified to be on tv this tournament sorry he won't be getting any air time. However, it's a fair system, everyone goes by the same rules, and it's not the worst thing that has ever happened ever like some people seem to think. | ||
|
W2
United States1177 Posts
On June 06 2011 07:18 how2TL wrote: One of the advantages of extended series is that the superior player is more likely to go through. This makes sense, since the better player goes through in a best of 7 more often than a best of 3. Yes, however the superior player should still win starting 0-0, he does not need a lead, being the "superior player". Of course a bo7 will make things less random, but it sacrifices excitement and legitimacy. Solution? Just have bo5 games, without extended series. | ||
|
SKtheAnathema
United States885 Posts
The advantage you get when you face someone you already beat is innate; you've already proven you can beat them so you should be able to do it again. I know I'd rather face someone I've already beaten than a potential wild card. | ||
|
zeru
8156 Posts
| ||
|
Zechs
United Kingdom321 Posts
| ||
|
HeadDesk
United States171 Posts
In a normal double elimination - Losira should have to beat MMA in Bo3's (since he has not lost) - whereas MMA just has to beat Losira in one Bo3. Instead - both players must now win a single Bo7 that starts at 2-1 in favor of MMA. If this were in the Loser's Bracket - this is the advantage that MMA would have regardless (having already lost a match). So, to follow the Extended Series and maintain the double elimination integrity of the tournament: - Losira SHOULD have to beat MMA in a Bo7 starting at 2-1 in favor of MMA - THEN he should have to win a Bo3 starting at 0-0 (as the Bo7 loss would be MMA's first loss of this tournament). This just is one example of how inconsistent it is when trying to implement it into a double elimination tournament. | ||
|
echO [W]
United States1495 Posts
| ||
|
AxionSteel
United States7754 Posts
| ||
|
PR4Y
United States260 Posts
this is a rule that honestly needs to be reevaluated, NOW. such a weak finals.... ridiculous. | ||
|
TzTz
Germany511 Posts
Two games in the final of a tournament really is a shame... I'd have loved to see at least two more exciting games of Losira vs MMA This rule is just bad  | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
The overall best player should obviously have the advantage. Sure it's not exactly likely to happen, but inconsitencies like this matters, no rule should have huge flaws that they keep just because the situation is unlikely. I didn't like it before, but, while disagreeing, could see their reasoning. Now, with Pool Play, I really don't understand how results from group stage should matter in the brackets. | ||
|
Cytokinesis
Canada330 Posts
Take Idra vs MC extended series. MC went down to the loser bracket and fought through to face Idra again. The problem is now to move on he has to win 4 games. Just strategically speaking that is a lot more pressure than only having to win twice in Idra's position. You have to play very safe(r) because you can't afford a stupid loss. There is the inherent strategy of what builds you are going to do with each game, and that becomes much harder when you have to win more. Where as the winner in the extended series can choose to play extremely risky because he only has to win 2 games as opposed to 4. It becomes the question of whether or not you can 'afford' a loss, and in the case of an extended series the loser can NEVER afford a loss. The winner can afford at least one loss because then at the very least they are 'even'. So from a risk-reward standpoint you can get a free-win or a negligible loss. | ||
|
ihavetofartosis
1277 Posts
| ||
|
zaii
Guam2611 Posts
On June 06 2011 10:38 ihavetofartosis wrote: A 2 game Grand Final is pretty lame any way you look at it. The games were so epic, I didn't care! | ||
| ||
