EPTMLG extended Series Poll - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
FeeL_ThE_RusH
Ireland227 Posts
| ||
|
Promises
Netherlands1821 Posts
| ||
|
OneRedBeard
Germany313 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:34 Pyrthas wrote: As I explain over here (I know I keep linking that, but it's just because I don't want to rehash the same junk in this thread), MLG is not consistent on this. When the grand final is not a rematch, it's possible for the LB player to go 3-2 against the WB player but still lose the tournament. The logical solution would be to extend the series to a best of seven once the LB finalist wins the best of three. | ||
|
RaiKageRyu
Canada4773 Posts
This is why sports use the traditional bracket. | ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:34 FeeL_ThE_RusH wrote: Again, the best explanation I've heard is this: The overarching goal is to find the best player. Double-elimination helps that, but when we have a rematch, it's better to throw double-elimination out the window and make sure that between those two players, we get the best one.It's not the worst system but I don't see why they'd implement in place over just a normal double elimination system, which seems fairer. Everyone in the tournament gets 1 match loss. Because you meet the one who gave you that first loss again makes it so that your loss is punished more than anyone else in the tournament not in the same situation as you. It just isn't as fair, in my opinion. I'm not saying I agree with this. I clearly don't. But it does explain the reasoning behind the extended series (and also explains why the grand final behaves so bizarrely). Edit: On November 08 2010 06:36 OneRedBeard wrote: The logical solution would be to extend the series to a best of seven once the LB finalist wins the best of three. I agree that's what MLG should do if they want to be consistent. (That's why I say it in that thread.) I was just pointing out that MLG chose not to do that, and so either they're stupid or they don't actually have the motivation you said they have. (Or they do, and they're not stupid, but they're afraid of making overly complicated rules. Or something. I don't know.) | ||
|
TrevorJK
United States77 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:33 Nouar wrote: Well this is what happens right now and there's no additionnal bo3 for the grand finals. If thats a case then thats a specific only for the grand finals which is dumb for not giving the winner a large enough advantage. But the normal extended series format is still fair. | ||
|
AyJay
1515 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:33 Titan48 wrote: That guy guys the advantage because he already 2-0'd you. Without the extended series you would have situations where a player goes 2-3 vs an opponent advances instead of the player with 3 wins I understand the rule, I don't understand the reasoning behind it. | ||
|
SentrySteve
United States71 Posts
Another point many of you may be missing is that it helps to progress the losers bracket at a reasonable speed. These MLG tourneys run on a tight clock and the losers bracket plays so many more games than the winners. For the sake of the spectators and MLG's personal schedule (like breakdown time, facility renting time limits, etc) the extended series rule may make the tourney easier to manage. | ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:38 SentrySteve wrote: It's fine. Another point many of you may be missing is that it helps to progress the losers bracket at a reasonable speed. These MLG tourneys run on a tight clock and the losers bracket plays so many more games than the winners. For the sake of the spectators and MLG's personal schedule (like breakdown time, facility renting time limits, etc) the extended series rule may make the tourney easier to manage. This makes no sense. At all. Edit: Shameless self-promotion, but also in hopes of not repeating arguments that have been made on these forums earlier (because basically everything people are saying in this thread has been said in these threads): A thread on extended series generally (from MLG DC): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=161323 A thread on extended series in the grand final in particular: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=166621 | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
2bo3 : TT1 has to win 4 games to win the tournament (can be 4-2 ie 2-1/2-1) extended : TT1 has to win 3 games to win the tournament if he lost 2-1 in WB (can be 3-1) So in THIS instance, it actually helps the guy coming from the LB. How fair is that for the guy winning all from WB ? | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
If you meet the same player again it means you haven't lost a single game since losing to him, whilst he has just lost to someone else. You've both lost 1 series so I think it's best to just start from scratch again. In the Grand Final it's "fair" that the winner bracket winner should get an advantage but I don't like that either. It's not like losing in the WB final is good... because you risk getting eliminated. Ultimately you can say the aim of the double elimination bracket is to make sure the best 2 players make it to the final, and that the best 2 players can't knock each other out early. Once you've achieved that goal just let them play the final from scratch. And as for restarting a game if it's on the wrong map.... don't ever do that. Give the players copy of the rules so if they play on the wrong map it's partially their fault too, just get on with it. | ||
|
MrMotionPicture
United States4327 Posts
| ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
I just don't like the extended series and I'm pretty annoyed that the match between Tyler and PainUser was reset after it was allowed to go on for that long. In fact, in point #2 you could possibly even shorten that 4 minutes. The reasoning for point #3 is that in the current system it doesn't feel like much of a "Grand Finals" in the current system. I'd even be okay with it just being a straight up bo7 without any advantage for the guy in the WB. After all, if you win the Winner's Bracket there's at least one less game you don't have to play. I think a Grand Finals of just a standard bo7 with no advantage for the guy from Winner's Bracket would not only be fair but more exciting for the audience. | ||
|
Odoakar
Croatia1837 Posts
It's double elimination, you lose 2 games to 2 different players - you should be out | ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:42 overt wrote: 3) Grand Finals is to be a straight up bo7 series with the player in the WB having a 1-0 advantage over his opponent. Honestly, I'd rather just see WB final, LB final, and grand final be bo5s (with two bo5s in the grand final). I know it makes it longer, but fuck it, they're the finals! | ||
|
.ImpacT.
United States390 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:41 Klive5ive wrote: It's silly. If you meet the same player again it means you haven't lost a single game since losing to him, whilst he has just lost to someone else. You've both lost 1 series so I think it's best to just start from scratch again. In the Grand Final it's "fair" that the winner bracket winner should get an advantage but I don't like that either. It's not like losing in the WB final is good... because you risk getting eliminated. Ultimately you can say the aim of the double elimination bracket is to make sure the best 2 players make it to the final, and that the best 2 players can't knock each other out early. Once you've achieved that goal just let them play the final from scratch. And as for restarting a game if it's on the wrong map.... don't ever do that. Give the players copy of the rules so if they play on the wrong map it's partially their fault too, just get on with it. Oh god...lol... They really should've just asked the players if it was OK to continue on the current map :/ | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
| ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
I think the extended series is good, until the finals. A player gets punished with facing more opponents if he fights through the loser's bracket. A player gets punished if he rematches an opponent who defeated him previously. A player who goes through the winners bracket doesn't have to worry about either of these things. In the finals it should be an even BO5. The player who fought back through the loser's bracket has been punished enough. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:37 Titan48 wrote: If thats a case then thats a specific only for the grand finals which is dumb for not giving the winner a large enough advantage. But the normal extended series format is still fair. This is still not fair cause some people don't meet in LB people players who beat them etc, why would you be disadvantaged against Y since the WB and LB encounters are unrelated ? (in LB the other guy has lost, too, another best of 3 already, and can perfectly get no disadvantage out of it by luck from the brackets) Anything using luck on who you meet is UNfair. A standard bo3 is fair, a chance to start with a disadvantage depending on who you meet is unfair. You may be 2-3 against a player and advancing, but the other player is 0-2 or 1-2 against someone else AND again 0-2 or 1-2 against you. Whereas being OUT of the tournament if you're only 3-4 against someone is kinda.....MEH. | ||
|
TheGrimace
United States929 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:38 SentrySteve wrote: It's fine. Another point many of you may be missing is that it helps to progress the losers bracket at a reasonable speed. These MLG tourneys run on a tight clock and the losers bracket plays so many more games than the winners. For the sake of the spectators and MLG's personal schedule (like breakdown time, facility renting time limits, etc) the extended series rule may make the tourney easier to manage. How does adding an extra Bo3 speed a tournament up? This rule currently generates more games, which takes more time, not less. | ||
| ||
