|
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.
Higher in the winner does not mean farther in the tournament. That is a common misconception. You can prove this fact by how the final ranking is ranked. The first is the winner of course, but everything after that is ranked according to how far they got in the loser's bracket. Therefore, how far you got in the winner is irrelevant in terms of how far along you are in the tournament.
Also, one of the poster above me pointed out; you can be farther along in the winner's bracket than someone while still losing to him earlier. Look at yesterday's MLG's bracket for example. Had Thorzane beat MC in the loser's bracket, he would of advanced to play Idra. Since he beat Idra in the pool, he would of gotten 2-0 head start even tho he "didn't go as far" according to your argument. See how it is wrong?
|
On June 07 2011 08:32 TedJustice wrote:
I've changed my mind about this rule. It adds some nice flavor for spectators.
Are you high? The flavor of a 2 game "Grand Finals"? Seriously?? I called several friends of mine to tune into the finals of MLG and after two games they were wondering where the hell the rest of the games were... It's completely and utterly retarded for spectators.
|
On June 07 2011 08:55 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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?
That's not exactly his point, he means that results from one part of the tournament shouldnt affect another part of the tournament, besides, obviously, the rewards from playing well in that particular part.
Would you feel it's fair if the results from the open season were added to the current NBA finals? Shouldn't the team that won the most games in the entire tournament be considered better, by your viewpoint?
|
My beef with extended series is it makes the finals (potentially) 2 games. I'd much rather have the grand finals exempt from the rule and make it a straight up BO5 or BO7. This is entirely from a spectator point of view, I want to see the most games possible.
|
On June 07 2011 08:58 dANiELcanuck wrote:
My beef with extended series is it makes the finals (potentially) 2 games. I'd much rather have the grand finals exempt from the rule and make it a straight up BO5 or BO7. This is entirely from a spectator point of view, I want to see the most games possible.
That would be unfair to the winner's bracket finalist.
You'd have to have 2 BO5s, but that might take too long. It's tough.
|
On June 07 2011 08:58 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:55 Jerubaal wrote: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. 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? That's not exactly his point, he means that results from one part of the tournament shouldnt affect another part of the tournament, besides, obviously, the rewards from playing well in that particular part. Would you feel it's fair if the results from the open season were added to the current NBA finals? Shouldn't the team that won the most games in the entire tournament be considered better, by your viewpoint?
NBA has a single elimination tournament. I see what you're saying but the games that fall under the "tournament" umbrella are quite clear for both MLG and NBA.
|
The MLG tournament can be very very taxing for people from the open bracket. First they have to play tons of games in a row to get into pool play, then they get their round of matches against the seeded players and later on they might even have to fight someone they encountered already again.
Imagine both the contestants being Terrans, imagine one of them having won the first encounter 2-0. What if the other one was in better shape the second time round and wins 4-3 then? They have played FIVE games then instead of the maximum three in a regular Bo3. What if those extra matches are 40 minute long bunkering mech games? Not only does that mean the player is more tired than any future opponent by being forced to play extra matches, but it also means the schedule of the whole event might go totally down the drain due to the extra hour(s) that people have to wait for those guys with their extra matches. Thats neither fair to the players nor fair to the viewers ...
The only reason for the extended series is DRAMA, but thats just another stupid excuse IMO, because everything else seems against it. Once a match is over it is over and just like criminals dont get cumulative sentences after having served their turn in jail (losing playeyrs get placed into the championship bracket earlier and have to play more games ... that is enough of a "penalty"), the players in an MLG tournament should not be judged by earlier match results from a different part of the tournament (pool play is separate from the championship bracket).
|
On June 07 2011 08:47 Perseverance wrote:
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.
I personally disagree, like many others. You get such a huge lead already winning early. I mean that loss vs idra basically forced MC to play 2 Bo3s extra, or 7 extra games(tho one extended series with 1 game more than it should've been). Considering that MLG is kind of "you have to prepare for everything", that gave idra plenty of time to get ready for his own match. This whole extended series bull***t makes winning early just sooooo much better than making a comeback. I mean it's already hard to make a comeback through the losers bracket, but also punish someone again for it. Both players lost a match to get to the point they are(except the finals, which extended there is fine*), it's just stupid to punish player A for loosing to player B rather than player C.
* Wish the finals were a Bo5 though, where the one from looser bracket had to win Bo3 + Bo5.
|
On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
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.
1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep.
2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time.
|
On June 07 2011 07:04 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 05:49 JustPlay wrote:On June 07 2011 05:48 Chocobo wrote: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. 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. 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? 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. And this is exactly where MLG failed at grasping why extended series is wrong. You guys are not taking into consideration the other matches the players have played in the tournament as a whole. How "good" or "bad" a player is isn't just about the match up between those two, it is how well they are doing in the tournament as a whole, this is why it is a tournament to begin with. Take MC and Idra for example. How can you prove that Idra is doing better than MC in the tournament simply because the result of one series they had on the first day? What about Idra losing to Thorzane but MC beating Thorzane? Does this also not prove that MC is better or at least equal to Idra? The answer is both does NOT prove that one is better than another. Therefore the most fair way to find out when they meet again is to have a fresh start to see who advances forward. Look at the tournament as a whole, and look what MC had to go through compared to Idra just because Idra beat MC on the opening day. Keep in mind they both ended up with 1 loss in their Pool play, but because of the direct loss : - MC had to beat Moon - MC then had to beat Thorzane - MC then had to beat Naniwa - While on the other hand, Idra took a loss against MMA - Idra then beat slush, and that is it. As you can see, Idra is already rewarded for that win by placing farther in the brackets, as well as giving him a life line allowing him to lose once and still arrive at the same point as MC. While MC on the other hand, had to battle through 3 opponents without a lifeline, just to meet Idra. Now, both players are at the same point on the bracket. One took his punishment already by losing earlier and had to battle out 3 full series with no loss, while the other took his reward by having a lifeline and taking a loss, then only had to win one more series. How can anyone in their right mind, at this point, after what these two have accomplished after their first encouter, could call it fair that MC must win 4/5 games against Idra to advance? It's absolutely ridiculous. (yes I understand MC pulled through, but that had more to do with Idra on a tilt than anything, and is irrelevant to the argument)
I hope I'm not double posting... but this is a symptom of seeding the first place player in a pool to the winner's bracket. A straight up double elimination without pool play wouldn't have this issue.
|
On June 07 2011 09:02 how2TL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:58 SKC wrote:On June 07 2011 08:55 Jerubaal wrote: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. 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? That's not exactly his point, he means that results from one part of the tournament shouldnt affect another part of the tournament, besides, obviously, the rewards from playing well in that particular part. Would you feel it's fair if the results from the open season were added to the current NBA finals? Shouldn't the team that won the most games in the entire tournament be considered better, by your viewpoint? NBA has a single elimination tournament. I see what you're saying but the games that fall under the "tournament" umbrella are quite clear for both MLG and NBA.
But that's not the point they use to defend the extended series! They say it would be "weird" to see a player win against another even if they have a worse overall record againt them.
You can win the NBA, or probally almost any tournament in any sport that doesn't use a simple single elimination format, while having a worse overall record. And noone EVER says it's weird.
Unless you are trying to say the Open Season and the Play-Off are 2 unrelated tournaments, I can't understand why it doesn't apply.
And no, it's not quite clear how the groups stages in MLG should be considered "the same thing" and the group stage in every other tournament should be considered "and entirely diferent thing."
|
i can see how people don't like this rule, because it does make it extremely difficult for someone to win 4-1 or 4-0 to advance in the loser's bracket if they previously lost to their opponent. however, i personally enjoy watching someone rise to the occasion and accomplish this, like how mc 4-0'd idra. it also awards the most consistent player as every single game is important in this scenario, whether if it is in the open bracket, group stage or loser's.
|
On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
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. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins.
|
On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
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. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins.
But it isn't just winning the most games between the two. True, player A can advance with 2-3 against player B, but it is never literally just 2-3. It is in actuality something like 2-0 between player A and B, then 2-0 between player B and C, while A losing 2-0 to C, then more games in between, then rematch into 2-1 between A and B, etc etc. So you can't say just because A and B has a total of 2-3, that B doesn't deserve to advance.
|
Extended series is good rule.
Pool placement is good rule.
Combining those two: not so good.
|
On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
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. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins.
Which is correct? Look at basically any sport as see how team that can win in the last stages of the tournament are praised for having the ability to rise when the situation demands it. It's pretty common to see the team with the best overall record NOT win the tournament, because in a eliminations format, winning in the play-offs matters more.
If you want the team with the best overall record to win, you need a league format, where everyone playes everyone, the same amount of games and you count the results against everyone, not just the 2 teams. It's also pretty common for the champion to have lost against the second placed team 2 times in league. Noone says it's unfair.
|
I hope someone can clear this up...
Ok so MMA and LosirA played a series previously before meeting again in the grand finals.
MMA won that 2-1 thus starting the extended series a Bo7 with the 2-1 score from their previous encounter...
If LosirA had been able to win that extended series and win 4 games would he, LosirA, be crowned the champion? or would they play another BoX series because it was a double elimination tournament and that would have been the first time MMA was defeated...
sorry if it was explained before
|
On June 07 2011 09:19 emesen wrote:
I hope someone can clear this up...
Ok so MMA and LosirA played a series previously before meeting again in the grand finals.
MMA won that 2-1 thus starting the extended series a Bo7 with the 2-1 score from their previous encounter...
If LosirA had been able to win that extended series and win 4 games would he, LosirA, be crowned the champion? or would they play another BoX series because it was a double elimination tournament and that would have been the first time MMA was defeated...
sorry if it was explained before
He would not need to. The extended series advantage replaces the advantage from coming from the WB.
|
On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
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. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins.
You forget the fact that the element of "winning when it counts" is maybe the most important part of every sport, be it NFL, NBA, Counter Strike, or SC2. You have to be the best when it counts. Losing a game in pool play is not good, but as long as you make it to the playoffs you have a shot at it just as anyone else. Now, given the fact that upsets are rare (a team that barely make it to the playoffs will rarely win the Stanley Cup, say.) they can and should still happen!
|
It's an awful rule. It ruins the excitement level of later matches where one player has an enormous advantage.
The rational behind the extended series rule seems to be to make every single match count. A compromise would be that the if two players who had previously played each other meet again in the later rounds, the winner of the previous set gets to big from map pool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
