|
On June 07 2011 00:02 Apolo wrote:
And this poll is useless btw. Just because the masses believe something is good or bad, doesn't make it so.
So there shouldn't be any polls in this world, no elections etc. ?
Btw the rule is horrible:
if 2 players face each other two times, the first games are counted twice. So player A lost 0-4 instead of 0-2. Player A lost two times against B and got awarded 4 losses. Wins and losses are counted twice. This doesn't make sense and it is unfair.
|
I don't like it because in group play you just can't prepare for every opponent properly. So it's happened easily that you lose 0:2 to someone you're not familiar with. Then later you meet him again later (let's say LB semis) where you have enough preparation time to really make it a fair series but then you're already behind by 0:2.
Sure you can say 'but it's the same for everyone!' which might be true but there are just people who need some preparations and some who rather play reactionary and kinda get a bit of an advantage. You might say that people who need preparation are wrong at an event like MLG but I'm pretty sure that games with a lot of preparation are way more exciting.
|
On June 07 2011 05:49 FlopTurnReaver wrote:
I don't like it because in group play you just can't prepare for every opponent properly. So it's happened easily that you lose 0:2 to someone you're not familiar with. Then later you meet him again later (let's say LB semis) where you have enough preparation time to really make it a fair series but then you're already behind by 0:2. It's a tournament. It's all about who is best prepared for every matchup. It's not about how much you can scout your opponents and try to tear apart their playstyle. That's league play. On June 07 2011 05:49 MapleLeafSirup wrote:
So there shouldn't be any polls in this world, no elections etc. ? Elections aren't decided by >50% for a reason, at least in the US. When it is by majority you get things like Prop 8 in California. Many people have no place voting for anything because they do it without any critical thinking.
|
I truly believe extended series is the only fair way to handle two players meeting twice in a double elimination tournament. It rewards players that win early and often, and is the best way to reward the best players over the tournament as a whole.
For example, player X meets player Y in Winners, and X wins 2-0. The two players meet again in Losers, and Y wins 2-1. Player X has won more games against Y over the course of tournament, but is eliminated by him. That just doesn't seem right to me.
|
extended series should only be in effect for grand finals in a double elim tourny. that way instead of running two sets where the loser has to reset, their previous matches are accounted for and just continue off that
|
I dont get it. Coming from cs every tounry was double elim...and you never had to worry about extended series bs(except the grand finals guy from losers had to win 2 bo3 and guy from winner had to win 1). Losing to someone is punishment enough because you now have to play WAY more games then the guy you lost to in the losers bracket making it much more difficult to advance to the latter stages.
The whole well they do it to protect the top players i dont get because in cs tournies you always saw the same teams getting the top spots because they were better.
|
Don't worry GCA some people will just never understand. This has been debated in circles on these forums and I 100% agree with you. Without the extended series, a player could be eliminated simply b/c of the order they meet in the tournament. Furthermore, that same player who is eliminated could actually be up in games 3-2. What's amazing is how offended people are by the idea of a Bo7 deciding who advances...
Also, the poll is super old with a lot of the votes from the first MLG SC2 was a part of when people didn't understand the rule or even the tournament format itself (there wasn't even pool play then).
|
I don't think most people realize that Extended Series really make sense in a Double Elimination bracket :/.
|
I think as others have said that it should be used in the bracket stages but not used from pool to bracket play. Pool play should only be used for seeding. I am happy with it or without it. I see the pros and cons.
|
I absolutely don't like it, like someone up there has said, if you lose your match you have to play more matches and thus are punished anyway. I also don't see how the direct advantage should be there. It's a new match on a new day or atleast a different time which means the shape of the player might be very different.
|
On June 07 2011 06:03 [MLG]GCA wrote:
I truly believe extended series is the only fair way to handle two players meeting twice in a double elimination tournament. It rewards players that win early and often, and is the best way to reward the best players over the tournament as a whole.
For example, player X meets player Y in Winners, and X wins 2-0. The two players meet again in Losers, and Y wins 2-1. Player X has won more games against Y over the course of tournament, but is eliminated by him. That just doesn't seem right to me.
That is exactly why extended series will be here to stay. Sure it sucks that you or your favorite player has to beat more times that he beat you ... but MLG believes that the better should advance, and that is the guy with the more wins. Sadly people will still hate it extended series even with this fact but gladly silently praise it when they or their favorite players they advantage of it.
@the poster above me
That would be true if the two players meet again a week after, of course it would suck if they count your losses from the same guy a month ago. But MLG is a 3 day event.
|
On June 07 2011 06:21 spybreak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 06:03 [MLG]GCA wrote:
I truly believe extended series is the only fair way to handle two players meeting twice in a double elimination tournament. It rewards players that win early and often, and is the best way to reward the best players over the tournament as a whole.
For example, player X meets player Y in Winners, and X wins 2-0. The two players meet again in Losers, and Y wins 2-1. Player X has won more games against Y over the course of tournament, but is eliminated by him. That just doesn't seem right to me. That is exactly why extended series will be here to stay. Sure it sucks that you or your favorite player has to beat more times that he beat you ... but MLG believes that the better should advance, and that is the guy with the more wins. Sadly people will still hate it extended series even with this fact but gladly silently praise it when they or their favorite players they advantage of it. @the poster above me That would be true if the two players meet again a week after, of course it would suck if they count your losses from the same guy a month ago. But MLG is a 3 day event.
So something like the Champion's League isn't fair? Ok....
All that really matters is that an overwhelming majority don't want it so it should disappear.
|
Extended series is the brain-child of a child-brain. But so is the whole format.. Please make someone with a basic understanding of how to do competitive formats be in charge of designing the competitions, MLG. What we have now is an atrocity with huge ad- and disadvantages handed out without reason. Worst of all is the impossibility of mixing the four groups completely post group-stage, pretty much ensuring that a player performing above his group-stage decided seed (let's say due to bad initial seedings..) will meet a player from his own group after two games, thus almost certainly being down by a huge margin. This favors the day of group-play over the championship-day for no apparent reason.
The purpose of a tournament should be to end up with a ranking of the players by how good they are. It's a hard task, but the current solution is a bad one.
|
I don't like the extended series rule since I feel it assumes that there is a transitivity of results. The justification most often given is that if A has a better head to head record than B, then A should have a higher placing in the tournament.
Idra and MC both lost one match in the group stage with MC losing to Idra and Idra losing to Thorzain. When the two met again in the Lower Bracket, Idra has a worse tournament record than MC having lost two series compared to one for MC. In addition, MC defeated the player that defeated Idra in the group stage. Despite this, extended series gave Idra a 2-0 advantage in the lower bracket. This lead to Idra going for 2 roach-ling all-in coinflip builds against MC since Idra felt he had a 50-50 chance for each all-in working and he only needed two wins. In this case, I think the extended series robbed the spectators of more standard games between Idra and MC like the ones we saw in pool play and in the final game of their series.
The end result is that extended series arbitrarily gave one player an advantage in the lower bracket based upon the fact that they had played before, and this advantage resulted in lower quality of play since the player with the advantage went for easy wins since he had games he could essentially throw away.
|
On June 07 2011 06:23 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 06:21 spybreak wrote:On June 07 2011 06:03 [MLG]GCA wrote:
I truly believe extended series is the only fair way to handle two players meeting twice in a double elimination tournament. It rewards players that win early and often, and is the best way to reward the best players over the tournament as a whole.
For example, player X meets player Y in Winners, and X wins 2-0. The two players meet again in Losers, and Y wins 2-1. Player X has won more games against Y over the course of tournament, but is eliminated by him. That just doesn't seem right to me. That is exactly why extended series will be here to stay. Sure it sucks that you or your favorite player has to beat more times that he beat you ... but MLG believes that the better should advance, and that is the guy with the more wins. Sadly people will still hate it extended series even with this fact but gladly silently praise it when they or their favorite players they advantage of it. @the poster above me That would be true if the two players meet again a week after, of course it would suck if they count your losses from the same guy a month ago. But MLG is a 3 day event. So something like the Champion's League isn't fair? Ok.... All that really matters is that an overwhelming majority don't want it so it should disappear.
Again .... that's a league format ... this is a tournament.
It would really surprise me if MLG will abandon extended series. I think (and I hope) that they will stand their ground as they have been in the past few years.
|
The extended series is kind of awkward, but not necessarily bad. Possible scenarios:
1) Pure Bo3. If A beats B 2-0, then loses 2-1 in a LB rematch later, then A is eliminated by a player that overall he's done better than. It may be perfectly "fair", but it feels wrong.
2) Double Bo3. If A wins the first match, then in a later match he has the advantage of being "up" 1 Bo3 and the other player has to win 2. If the first game was 2-1, then it's then possible for A to go 2-3 and advance in this rematch format, with an overall score of 4-4. Here the winner of the first game still has the "tiebreak" advantage.
3) Extended series. If A wins the Bo3, then the rematch becomes a Bo7 with the first 2 or 3 games "already played" - and extended series guarantees that the player who advances has the better overall record between the two.
I'm a big fan of extended series: when I watched MLG a couple years ago just for the Halo competition I thought it was a brilliant idea.
The other question is of course whether to apply it from pool play into the bracket. I don't really care. On the one hand, pool play is a different thing: on the other hand, the head-to-head record is a big part of what MLG looks at.
EDIT: On the other hand, I also agree that 2-game finals is silly. I'd like to see MLG keep the extended series but add a clause making any extended finals an auto-Bo9 (so say if you have 2-0 coming in, have to win 3 games at least) Reduces the losers' disadvantage in the Finals slightly as well, but mostly I'm concerned about the spectacle aspect..
|
Nothing takes away from an epic finals more than extended series.... I mean seriously the last 2 mlgs have been cut by the balls because of the rule, which yes it is fair but it really ruins the viewing experience (at least for me).... But i mean could anyone imagine how epic that finals could have been had they started from scratch 0-0 with a best of seven? Oh well these are my thoughts, and this is like the 10th time this has been polled but MLG won't change their system.
|
On June 07 2011 06:13 sereniity wrote:
I don't think most people realize that Extended Series really make sense in a Double Elimination bracket :/.
I think it is good for a Double Elimination bracket, but very poor for a pool and then a bracket.
Especially since the pool play is for seeding the championship bracket. This means it are 2 different events and should not be put together.
If the extended series was in the NASL and the players in the final Top 16 tournament already met each other in the pool, do you think the rule applies?
|
Extended series would be fine if used only in the double elimination bracket. But right now you can get in the grand final from the upper bracket starting with a 0 - 2 penalty, while it should be the other way around.
|
On June 07 2011 06:03 [MLG]GCA wrote:
I truly believe extended series is the only fair way to handle two players meeting twice in a double elimination tournament. It rewards players that win early and often, and is the best way to reward the best players over the tournament as a whole.
For example, player X meets player Y in Winners, and X wins 2-0. The two players meet again in Losers, and Y wins 2-1. Player X has won more games against Y over the course of tournament, but is eliminated by him. That just doesn't seem right to me.
So you're saying the Olympics, World Cup and every single tournament/event got it wrong except for MLG Halo?
World Cup -94: Sweden meets Brazil in group stage and then later again in the semis. Is Brazil to start the semis with a 2-0 lead? Of course not, that's stupid, you'd be the laughing stock in any sports environment for even suggesting such thing.
Anyone suggesting such thing simply doesn't understand sport and competition. Each match are individual event, tons of things might change from one match to the other - fatigue, mindset and heck even the metagame.
edit: also, the fact that you at MLG somehow thinks extended series are super exciting and tailor the brackets to force as many as possible of them makes it even worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
