EPTMLG extended Series Poll - Page 22
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
kckkryptonite
1126 Posts
| ||
|
features
Ireland160 Posts
On June 06 2011 10:38 ihavetofartosis wrote: A 2 game Grand Final is pretty lame any way you look at it. I agree completely, there are times were I think a best of 7 isnt even enough. This is a very bad system and a finals should never be decided in so few games. That said I am very pleased with the quality of MLG Collumbus as a whole, easily the best foreign Starcraft tournament Ive ever seen! And aint the Koreans so much better in person?! What a difference latency and a few thousand miles make! :D | ||
|
SKtheAnathema
United States885 Posts
On June 06 2011 10:48 kckkryptonite wrote: I used to dislike the rule, but after this MLG I'm liking it; for the finals at least. Imagine if MMA beat Losira 2-0 and then lost in the finals 1-2? Standard double elim would make it so Losira would have to win TWO sets of BoX vs MMA in the grand finals. One to put MMA into "losers". | ||
|
features
Ireland160 Posts
On June 06 2011 10:48 kckkryptonite wrote: In that case it would have went to a best of 7 as I understand it. I used to dislike the rule, but after this MLG I'm liking it; for the finals at least. Imagine if MMA beat Losira 2-0 and then lost in the finals 1-2? | ||
|
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
On June 06 2011 10:48 kckkryptonite wrote: I used to dislike the rule, but after this MLG I'm liking it; for the finals at least. Imagine if MMA beat Losira 2-0 and then lost in the finals 1-2? I really don't think the debate is about finals. In that case it's a generally reasonable rule, though you could argue either way on it. It's the rest of the time, when the two players would otherwise be on equal footing, where it's clearly unfair. | ||
|
Ipp
United States456 Posts
| ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On June 06 2011 10:52 aristarchus wrote: I really don't think the debate is about finals. In that case it's a generally reasonable rule, though you could argue either way on it. It's the rest of the time, when the two players would otherwise be on equal footing, where it's clearly unfair. The problem is that almost everyone that says they like it because of how they work in the finals don't actually know how double elimination works. You can't say you like it because it gives the player from the winner's bracket an advantage. Not only it doesn't work 100% like that, as it can actually give the player from the loser's bracket an advantage, regular double elimination also gives an advantage. Without extended series, the player from the loser's bracket has to win 2 series, while the player from the winner's bracket only has to win 1 series. Noone can be out of the tournament without losing 2 series, that's basically what double elimination means. | ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
And this poll is useless btw. Just because the masses believe something is good or bad, doesn't make it so. | ||
|
primebeef
United States140 Posts
| ||
|
Mailing
United States3087 Posts
| ||
|
Samhax
1054 Posts
| ||
|
Karakaxe
Sweden585 Posts
| ||
|
supeROLL
United Kingdom29 Posts
However personally, I'd rather just see a simplified, single bracket tournament with larger series (BO5 or BO7) all around. The seeds could still start off in the pools with BO3 and their ranking would stick them higher up into the bracket depending on how they fare (as happens currently in the loser bracket) then you would just have a straight up knock-out without extended series. I understand that the current system has been designed so that we see the highest number of the best match-ups, but i think the current pools & brackets takes the principle too far. | ||
|
Chanted
Norway1001 Posts
| ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
If this rule is ever applied outside of the grand finals, that means both players are meeting in the lower bracket, which means both players have lost once (or did bad in the pool) and only once, therefore, they are both at exact footing (in some cases, the loser actually had to do more). Therefore, there is no reason one should have this big of an advantage over another. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On June 07 2011 00:05 primebeef wrote: I think it's fair in the fact that they didn't lose the first time, so if it was standard they would have already been out of the tournament, with no chance for redemtion. Also i there wasn't a double elimination, the person who won the semi finals would have already won the tournament but instead they have to play in the finals, which still gives them a chance to lost, but they deserve an advantage for not getting knocked down into the loser's bracket. The winner's advantage is already present. They are rewarded by not having to play another match up against someone else (and therefore risking losing). The other advantage is the fact that they can still lose once and still stay in the tournament. The loser on the other hand is punished by having to fight his way back up, as well as taking away a "life line" that he had. This means, that after a game in the winner's bracket, the winner and loser is already rewarded and punished accordingly. If they happen to meet again, this can only happen in the Loser's bracket (or Grand Finals, but no one is arguing about this). This means that the ex-"winner" had already lost to someone else, and therefore lost his life line and punished by thrown into the Loser's bracket, while on the other hand, the ex-"loser" had been doing well, winning all his games to fight his way back for a rematch. At this point, both players should be on equal grounds. ex-"Winner" was awarded for his win, then did not prove himself that he can stay in the Winner's and was punished with his loss by being put into the loser's, while the ex-"loser" already got punished, then proved himself to get another chance. | ||
|
Chocobo
United States1108 Posts
On June 06 2011 10:48 kckkryptonite wrote: I used to dislike the rule, but after this MLG I'm liking it; for the finals at least. Imagine if MMA beat Losira 2-0 and then lost in the finals 1-2? Then that would knock MMA down to the losers bracket, where they would start at 0-0 again. Being in the winners bracket gives MMA a huge advantage to start with since he can afford to lose a series and Losira can't. | ||
|
JustPlay
United States211 Posts
| ||
|
Chocobo
United States1108 Posts
On June 07 2011 00:02 Apolo wrote: Underdogs should not win. The point of a tournament is that the best players are at the top, and this system is just fair and more accurate for that purpose. Extended series should definitely stay. Then let the best players EARN their wins. If that's how you feel then why not make every Code S players' games a best of 9 with them starting up 4-0 against every opponent. They've earned their way up to Code S and proven their skill, right? They shouldn't have to actually fight their way through a tournament bracket, right? (if you agree with this are you insane) Like I've said before, anyone who thinks extended series is more fair simply has a very limited understanding of what it does and the problems it causes. It is literally a less fair system and this can be proven with facts. | ||
|
JustPlay
United States211 Posts
On June 07 2011 05:48 Chocobo wrote: Facts like in the same tournament the players played with that record? Starting up 4-0 for no reason is completely arbitrary while extended series is based on relevant results. Then let the best players EARN their wins. If that's how you feel then why not make every Code S players' games a best of 9 with them starting up 4-0 against every opponent. They've earned their way up to Code S and proven their skill, right? They shouldn't have to actually fight their way through a tournament bracket, right? (if you agree with this are you insane) Like I've said before, anyone who thinks extended series is more fair simply has a very limited understanding of what it does and the problems it causes. It is literally a less fair system and this can be proven with facts. The best players earn their wins in extended series. Removing extended series is just a way to let a worse player win out a series. If you can't win >50% of your matches against a player why should you advance past him? | ||
| ||
