|
On June 07 2011 08:18 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +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
Yeah, but how would it be fair if IdrA took two maps off MC in the winners final then gets dropped on to the losers by MMA or something, then plays MC in the losers finals and loses 2-0 and get eliminated, how would that be fair? Because IdrA already took two maps, why would the entire set reset if he already did his job to take two maps off? It makes it very easy for the loser imo because he doesn't have to work his way up.
|
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.
Nothing has changed in 6 months. The format MLG uses is still the same. I don't see how it's misleading to look at past results and compound them with current results. I don't want to get into this but I can't really condone a person with MLG coming into such a thread and attempting to downplay importance of said thread instead of addressing the concerns of the thread. I think I also saw a post from you saying how people that don't like extended series merely don't understand it. I find that extremely condescending and has no place on these forums.
Let's get back to the thread at hand. My overall opinion is that I really dislike the MLG system so talking about a small section of the system instead of the system as a whole doesn't really sit well with me.
|
On June 07 2011 08:21 lord_nibbler wrote:
Looking at the situation I seem to come to a view contrary to most of you here.
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?
He is not at a disadvantage even if extended series isn't there. His advantage is being able to advance, keep his lifeline, and had to play less games than the loser (therefore less chance of losing).
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?
The loser already has to play way more games than the winner. In MC's twitter, he said something about having to play so many zergs before Losira, that Losira was able to easily adapt and counter his new stargate build.
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?
No, infact, as many people pointed out, having extended series led to boring games for the viewers, because we already know 80% of the time who will be advancing. and if people decide to cheese to get out of pool play, that is their choice if they are willing to take the risk associated with it.
|
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 taking two games off him placed him at a higher seed in the competition? That was the intention for the games. Also, not getting knocked down to the loser bracket and staying in the winners bracket is compensation enough in most other scenarios (I don't believe we were at that point though yet when MC played IdrA).
|
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's also an inherent problem with the rule, it's not a tournament of two people. You are completely discounting the result of Player Z, who beat player X after Player Y lost, and the players Player Y had to beat in loser's, it's like those matches never happened or don't count to you. The line of events isn't Player X 2-0 Player Y, then Player X 1-2 Player Y and Player X is out of the tournament, games happen between those two events. Player Y gets punished by having to play an extra rounds in the losers at risk of elimination each time and have to win every single series to even face player X again, and player X wins the privilege to still be able to lose and not drop out of the tourney with that first series win.
Player X didn't just get eliminated by a guy who he has a winning record against, he was eliminated because he first lost against another player (who he does not have a winning record against), and then lost vs. Player Y. Even if Player X 2-0'd Player Y and barely loses the next two times vs Z and Y again, he's still 4-4 at best vs. those two players who knocked him out of the tournament combined.
If you want to protect your upper bracket players and seeded players that's absolutely fine, but with the system you're ignoring the flaws that they have that got them into lower bracket in the first place.
|
This rule maintains the double elimination format in all circumstances. MMA eliminated Losira twice. Losira would have had to eliminate MMA twice. That they did it in one series instead of multiple series is irrelevant.
EDIT: Arguments against this invariably bring up Player X, Y, Z scenarios. The purpose of the tournament is not to find the best player (as that is impossible); the purpose is to find out who is playing the best that day, in that circumstance. Taking this principle, it should be evident that it's easier (read: better) to compare players A and B by themselves than to compare A, B, C, D, E.....Z. (Players A and B are in the finals, but really player C is the best because the margin with which he lost to player D, who beat player A, is smaller than the margin player B lost player G....). And, again, taking this principle that we are trying to isolate a measurable scenario instead of some wide sweeping conclusion, it should be obvious that it's better to only use a game as a standard and not series. Thus we have an extended series where the players are judge by which games they win, not by which series they win.
|
I've changed my mind about this rule. It adds some nice flavor for spectators.
|
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.
I'm fairly sure if this poll was conducted again now, the results would be within the margin of error from the last one.
Double elim is hard enough on the people who go to the losers bracket early without this rule. MC lost to Idra on day 1, when he wasn't playing his best (so he says) if they had played on day 2, MC might have won. By the time they play on day 3, it could go either way, a tourney is about who is best on the day, in that series, not who was better 2 days ago before it really mattered.
In the Champions league they have a group stage and a knockout stage, to suggest that the results from the group stage should carry over to the knockout is ridiculous, you play differently when playing knockout to when playing a in a group.
If you think people's minds have changed, re do the poll next MLG and we shall find out.
|
On June 07 2011 08:26 ReseT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:18 Fubi wrote: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 Yeah, but how would it be fair if IdrA took two maps off MC in the winners final then gets dropped on to the losers by MMA or something, then plays MC in the losers finals and loses 2-0 and get eliminated, how would that be fair? Because IdrA already took two maps, why would the entire set reset if he already did his job to take two maps off? It makes it very easy for the loser imo because he doesn't have to work his way up.
Because Idra lost to MMA while MC did not lose to anyone else in the whole tournament at that point.
Use your own example. Idra beats MC 2-0 first, then MC beats Idra 2-0 in their rematch. Ok now look at it this way. At this exact point, compare the two.
- They beat each other an equal number of times
- BUT, MC won multiple series getting here, without a single loss
- While Idra took at LEAST one loss getting here
Therefore, at this point, their score are both equal, but MC has more wins and zero loss, while Idra has less win and at least one loss so far. The argument would be then, MC is better player and should advance. The entire tournament is relevant because as I said, the point is to see who the best player is overall in the tournament.
|
On June 07 2011 08:26 ReseT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:18 Fubi wrote: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 Yeah, but how would it be fair if IdrA took two maps off MC in the winners final then gets dropped on to the losers by MMA or something, then plays MC in the losers finals and loses 2-0 and get eliminated, how would that be fair? Because IdrA already took two maps, why would the entire set reset if he already did his job to take two maps off? It makes it very easy for the loser imo because he doesn't have to work his way up.
Yes but Idra lost to someone in between, with extended series Idra has to only win 2 more games while MC has to win 4, even though Idra already is at an even matches won/lost record with MC because of his loss to MMA, MC needs to win more games overall because of this rule.
|
On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
This rule maintains the double elimination format in all circumstances. MMA eliminated Losira twice. Losira would have had to eliminate MMA twice. That they did it in one series instead of multiple series is irrelevant.
No one is arguing about this rule for Grand Finals. That is how double elimination is suppose to work. It is simply, everyone gets to be eliminated twice before being out of the tournament. So for the Grand Finals, the Winner's Finalist never lost, therefore if the Loser's Finalist wins a series, that will be the Winner's first elimination, therefore they play a second series to see who gets eliminated twice first. That is the essence of double elimination.
What we're debating about is outside of Grand Finals, that this rule shouldn't apply. When players meet again in the loser's bracket, they both have lost one series, they both have been eliminated once and only once in the entire tournament. Therefore they should be equal with no advantage given to either player.
|
If you beat someone early on, that means you made it farther than them, so it makes sense that you'd have an advantage against them.
What I don't understand is if people are against this, why aren't they against seeding? Doesn't that also give an "unfair advantage" to people who win?
|
In some way's it's fair...but I don't really know what they SHOULD do if they were to get rid of it...since I think something should happen for previous winners.
|
On June 07 2011 08:45 TedJustice wrote:
If you beat someone early on, that means you made it farther than them, so it makes sense that you'd have an advantage against them.
What I don't understand is if people are against this, why aren't they against seeding? Doesn't that also give an "unfair advantage" to people who win?
Wrong. The fact that they are playing each other again means that they both made it just as far at this point.
The advantage in the first place is already there by being seeded higher, or moving along without having to play several more series in the loser's bracket to get back up to this point.
|
Not a fair rule. I think the whole idea of deciding the more skilled player is rough, and certainly can't be definitively determined from any single BoX. What happens in one series could be totally different from another, IdrA vs. MC for instance. Rematches between players should therefore be treated as separate series, instead of doubly punishing the initial loser for that earlier loss.
The one aspect that I'm okay with for rematches is not playing on any of the same maps.
On June 07 2011 07:27 yoshi_yoshi wrote:
Games played later in a tournament should be more important than the games played earlier. The games in the final should be the MOST important. That was not the case in this MLG.
...
Please someone refute any of this.
I agree with it. That's a great point.
|
On June 07 2011 08:45 TedJustice wrote:
If you beat someone early on, that means you made it farther than them, so it makes sense that you'd have an advantage against them.
What I don't understand is if people are against this, why aren't they against seeding? Doesn't that also give an "unfair advantage" to people who win?
You don't seem to really understand their point. The fact that you made it farther than them by beating them IS the advantage that you get. Anything else, like adding the previous score, is artificially increasing the advantage and isn't fair.
Seeding is the reward for doing well in the group play, then you start another part in the tournament. Adding the extended results after group play is giving double rewards for the play that happened in the groups, and changing the balance of "importance" of the two parts of the tournament.
Also, extended series can give the advantage to the players who did WORSE in the pool play, as long as he beat the guy that did better.
I really doubt most people that defend extended series would like to see them in the NBA or NFL.
|
On June 07 2011 08:48 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:45 TedJustice wrote:
If you beat someone early on, that means you made it farther than them, so it makes sense that you'd have an advantage against them.
What I don't understand is if people are against this, why aren't they against seeding? Doesn't that also give an "unfair advantage" to people who win? Wrong. The fact that they are playing each other again means that they both made it just as far at this point. The advantage in the first place is already there by being seeded higher, or moving along without having to play several more series in the loser's bracket to get back up to this point.
They made it farther in the winner's bracket though. That's arguably more difficult because the players up there are supposed to be better. So that's something they should be rewarded for.
|
On June 07 2011 08:50 TedJustice wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:48 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:45 TedJustice wrote:
If you beat someone early on, that means you made it farther than them, so it makes sense that you'd have an advantage against them.
What I don't understand is if people are against this, why aren't they against seeding? Doesn't that also give an "unfair advantage" to people who win? Wrong. The fact that they are playing each other again means that they both made it just as far at this point. The advantage in the first place is already there by being seeded higher, or moving along without having to play several more series in the loser's bracket to get back up to this point. They made it farther in the winner's bracket though. That's arguably more difficult because the players up there are supposed to be better. So that's something they should be rewarded for.
They are rewarded, they have to play less matches, and if they reach the finals they can lose one BoX.
Why is it fair to give a reward to the player that moves to the winner's bracket if he faces someone he met before, but not if he faces someone he hasn't played agaisnt? The advantage you are talking about is not the purpose of extended series.
|
On June 07 2011 08:49 Enwrit wrote:Not a fair rule. I think the whole idea of deciding the more skilled player is rough, and certainly can't be definitively determined from any single BoX. What happens in one series could be totally different from another, IdrA vs. MC for instance. Rematches between players should therefore be treated as separate series, instead of doubly punishing the initial loser for that earlier loss. The one aspect that I'm okay with for rematches is not playing on any of the same maps. Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:27 yoshi_yoshi wrote:
Games played later in a tournament should be more important than the games played earlier. The games in the final should be the MOST important. That was not the case in this MLG.
...
Please someone refute any of this. I agree with it. That's a great point.
So you think that no BoX can determine the best player, but you think that multiple BoX where the W/L of the previous rounds is irrelevant simplifies this?
And that point about matches being more important later in the tournament is terrible. That totally undermines the idea of competitive play. Should goals in soccer count more in the last minute? Should the 5th game of a basketball series count more than the first game?
The tournament should try to make an unbiased system to assess the players: A lack of extended series introduces new, arbitrary criteria. The winner should be determined by who wins more games because a game is the only unbiased standard. We can't play rock-papers-scissors with a 128 man pool.
|
I'd rather just have bo3 until the semis of the loser's bracket and then bo5 until a bo7 grand final (or maybe just bo3 till a bo5 grand final). The reward for winning the winner's bracket is not having to go thru the losers bracket! Loser's bracket is much longer and ofc you can secure at least a 2nd place prize if you don't drop down.
This whole extended series is so random, you play bo3s but if you accidentally end up playing the same person twice it's gets stretched out for no reason. Yeah you may have beaten that player before but if you're playing them again that means you lost to someone else while they beat someone else. So I don't see why one player should have an advantage when you both made it just as far through the brackets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
