EPTsemi and final should be BO 5 only
MLG extended Series Poll - Page 26
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
tuho133
120 Posts
semi and final should be BO 5 only | ||
|
Ocedic
United States1808 Posts
On June 07 2011 06:46 Baituri wrote: I think most people don't realize that MLG does not have a double elimination tournament. You have 3 separate tournaments. Pool play Open brackets Championship brackets The Pool play and Open brackets only function as seeding for the Championship Bracket. This means that the Championship Bracket is a separate tournament. In the pools you can't play someone 2 times, so the extended series rule doesn't apply here. In the open brackets it is possible to meet the guy who knocked you down. The extended series rule could make sense here. But why would you use extra rules for a seeding tournament. In the Championship bracket the only way you can meet the guy who knocked you down from the winner bracket is to meet him again in the finals. Where the guy from the winner bracket already has an advantage. He only has to win 1 Bo3 and the guy from the loser bracket already has to win 2 Bo3s (At least that is how it should be, MLG does not do this because of the extended series rule.) I think the problem that should be discussed is: Are the different tournaments (How I like to call it) really separate tournaments, or is it 1 big tournament. Considering a large portion of the players are isolated from the top seeded players during the open/pool brackets, I consider them separate tournaments, so yeah in that regard extended series doesn't make sense to carry over to championship brackets. | ||
|
namedplayer
844 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
By losing you either get a worse seed into the championship bracket or you go to the losers bracket where you are put at a huge disadvantage already. Having extended series also is unnecessarily harsh. If the player who won the first time is better he should win the next time too. Just make it a bo5 if you need to. | ||
|
TigerKarl
1757 Posts
Well, i like the rule when it supports a player i like, and i dislike the rule if it supports someone i don't like. So i'd say it's better to abolish the rule because it can produce hatred in the community. | ||
MLG-Kyle
United States123 Posts
| ||
|
ReseT
United States273 Posts
| ||
|
Hrrrrm
United States2081 Posts
On June 07 2011 08:08 MLG-Kyle wrote: Bumping a poll from last year is a little bit misleading, is it not? Anyone who hasn't realized the OP is more than six months old will be led to believe the results are current, when that may or may not be the case. If anything it's more relevant considering MLG decided to disregard the opinion of the community in concerns to Extended Series back then and continues to disregard it today. Two game Finals tends to leave a sour taste in one's mouth. | ||
|
SlapMySalami
United States1060 Posts
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. you exclude the fact that the player who loses first already has to play a LOT more games before he reaches the player for example if cruncher wins 4 rounds and loses 1 he is placed into round 8 of the losers bracket after winning 4 games his first opponent he knocked out (syko_spartan) lost round 1 to cruncher and wins 7 rounds to get to cruncher again but now will be at a 0-2 deficit. in this example syko_spartan has to win almost double the sets cruncher had to win to earn his way up to meet cruncher again. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
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 :\ Although I'm quoting something from quite a while ago, this was the first thought that came to my head when reading the poll options  .I don't like it, but I don't want to vote that it's "unfair" either. I just would prefer something else, which I would also view as fair. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On June 07 2011 08:10 ReseT wrote: How is the extended series unfair? The player had an advantage by winning the two previous games, it's not like he was rewarded those games out of thin air. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. If IdrA won 2-0 against MC and then he started over and lost 0-2, wouldn't it be 2-2 in the overall game score? How would that be fair if IdrA had already taken two games off of him? Because Idra lost to other people while MC won every one of his matches leading up to the rematch. Read at least the recent few pages for some of these arguments already presented | ||
|
ReseT
United States273 Posts
| ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On June 07 2011 08:16 ReseT wrote: That's completely irrelevant, MC never played those players until he had to replay IdrA... It is relevant because the point of a tournament is to determine who the best player is out of all the players, not who the best player is between Idra and MC | ||
|
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
Like it is said before, it is FAIR so why should it be taken out? Seems like people just want it out for personal reason and no logical reason at all. It gives the previous winner an obvious advantage but they deserve it after all. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On June 07 2011 08:19 SheaR619 wrote: I think it something that make MLG unique so I dont mind it at all. I mean otherwise all other tournament will be the same which isnt a bad thing but this way MLG has it own "twist." Kind of like clay and grass courts in tennis (French open, US open etc etc...). Like it is said before, it is FAIR so why should it be taken out? Seems like people just want it out for personal reason and no logical reason at all. It gives the previous winner an obvious advantage but they deserve it after all. We're saying it isn't fair, hence the debate. | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
I find the extended series rule a lot fairer to the players and beneficial to the quality of the tournament as a whole. A huge aspect of Starcraft in a tournament environment is the preparation the players have done beforehand and their ability to adapt to their opponents play style on the fly (e.g. 'special tactics'). Why should the winner of the first match be at a disadvantage in the metagame when players meet for a second time? Is it not deeply unfair, that his opponent got to see his style and successful build orders (analyzed the replays), but does not necessarily had to show his? Would this not lead to boring games at the beginning of the tournament, because no one would want to 'reveal his hand'? Would this not lead to the Koreans cheesing in most of their group games, because they know they are strong enough to advance in the championship bracket later and everything before is just foreplay anyway? | ||
|
geno
United States1404 Posts
| ||
|
Blasphemi
United Kingdom980 Posts
| ||
|
VGhost
United States3621 Posts
| ||
|
Brad
2754 Posts
If you come from the loser bracket in double elimination you still have a disadvantage because you have to win twice. MLG-Kyle, if this poll was done today, I'm pretty sure the results wouldn't be much different. | ||
| ||
