EPTMLG extended Series Poll - Page 31
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Teim
Australia373 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On June 07 2011 13:18 Teim wrote: I like the extended series system. If somebody, like Naniwa at Dallas, wins a ridiculous amount of games and then finally loses in the final, he should have another chance (because, everyone else got a second chance). The extended series basically gives them that chance. There are other ways to handle this ... double elimination. | ||
|
SKtheAnathema
United States885 Posts
Use your brains. If someone makes it to grand finals through winners, they have to lose TWO series. Half the people who are for extended series think that without extended series, grand finals would just be one BoX with no advantage to the winner. That's not even a real tournament format. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On June 07 2011 13:18 Teim wrote: I like the extended series system. If somebody, like Naniwa at Dallas, wins a ridiculous amount of games and then finally loses in the final, he should have another chance (because, everyone else got a second chance). The extended series basically gives them that chance. "Another chance" is not related to extended series portion. That's related to the double elimination part. Put it this way... how it currently panned out with the double elimination extended series... The previous series from MMA vs Losira ended up 2-1 in favor of MMA. Consequently, during the finals, they extended the series, making it a Bo7 with the score already at 2-1. If it's double elimination NOT extended series , what happens is that MMA has to win a single series (which starts at 0-0, not 2-1) while Losira has to win two series (both which would start at 0-0). Hence called "double elimination," Losira has already been eliminated once (it doesn't matter if it was by MMA or not), so he only needs to lose once more to be out of the tournament. If MMA loses, he has only been eliminated once, hence they play another series to see who will have lost twice. Much better system, imo, than double elimination. This would have been what would have happened if MC had beaten Losira, since MMA had never played MC in the tourney (I believe). | ||
|
speedphlux
Bulgaria962 Posts
It's MLG rules, they can do whatever they want. | ||
|
Chicane
United States7875 Posts
On June 07 2011 13:36 Rabiator wrote: There are other ways to handle this ... double elimination. Ya. It is frustrating how many people still don't understand that there are other methods that many people consider better. Many people STILL seem to think that the only options are extended series or no advantage to the previous winner... and it is very annoying... | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On June 07 2011 13:51 Whitewing wrote: The winner already has an advantage: he won the match, and stays in the winners bracket. If they play again, should be a clean slate. No one even considers that it might even be a PENALTY to the WINNER because he might have to play more games in that "Bo7 with advantage to one" than in a regular Bo3. Thats not even close to being fair to the player compared to opponents who dont have to play as many games but went the same path. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On June 07 2011 14:00 Rabiator wrote: No one even considers that it might even be a PENALTY to the WINNER because he might have to play more games in that "Bo7 with advantage to one" than in a regular Bo3. Thats not even close to being fair to the player compared to opponents who dont have to play as many games but went the same path. Wait what? Are you suggesting extended series can ever be a disadvantage for the winner? I'm so not following what you're saying. | ||
pieman819
Australia457 Posts
On June 07 2011 14:03 Fubi wrote: Wait what? Are you suggesting extended series can ever be a disadvantage for the winner? I'm so not following what you're saying. In the finals if the previous match was a 2-1 then the person from losers bracket only has to win 3 games rather than 4 | ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
edit: Meant psychology, not physiological -__- | ||
|
sicarii
United States93 Posts
Edit- I do not think standard double elimination works for starcraft because of the variability in players, and matchups. For example If MC beat Losira I do not think he should have started disadvantaged to MMA in the final because they had not played. MMA could have had a much easier road to the final than MC (which he did), so a fresh matchup should start with a fresh series. | ||
|
Chicane
United States7875 Posts
On June 07 2011 14:18 Dommk wrote: It can be a daunting task for the loser, often playing on a physiological level but that doesn't mean it is not fair. I find it a good thing that the person who advances has the most wins on the other But there are better solutions than extended series, which still gives the advantage to the previous winner. I have mentioned it many times in this thread. I almost feel the need to personally PM every single person who doesn't know (even if the person I am responding to know... that's not the point) just so we can stop seeing posts where people ignore the options, and just discuss how bad it would be to have absolutely nothing rather than an alternative. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On June 07 2011 14:19 sicarii wrote: Edit- I do not think standard double elimination works for starcraft because of the variability in players, and matchups. For example If MC beat Losira I do not think he should have started disadvantaged to MMA in the final because they had not played. MMA could have had a much easier road to the final than MC (which he did), so a fresh matchup should start with a fresh series. That could happen regardless. In single elimination, MC would have already been eliminated prior and wouldn't have had a chance to even make it to the finals, right? | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On June 07 2011 14:05 pieman819 wrote: In the finals if the previous match was a 2-1 then the person from losers bracket only has to win 3 games rather than 4 But the winner also only has to win 2 rather than 4. Net advantage is still +1 for the Winner | ||
|
how2TL
1197 Posts
| ||
|
-miDnight-
Taiwan455 Posts
| ||
|
HeadDesk
United States171 Posts
On June 07 2011 14:19 sicarii wrote: I still think that instead of extended series they play Bo3, if winner of the last time they played wins first series, they win and its over. If the loser of first series wins a Bo3 then a second fresh Bo3 be played, winner takes all.... This is just a different version of an extended series. Just instead of an extended Bo7 it's two Bo3's. This is nearly the same thing as it puts the original loser at a huge disadvantage. It should just be made to a true double elimination tournament. Both players have used 1 out of 2 series losses - and are on equal footing. They should both have equal opportunity to move on - not someone at a disadvantage because someone beat them at a different point in the tournament. This basically gives the winner (who now lost) a triple elimination tournament (as they now have to lose a Bo7 they are up at least 2-1 in - or two Bo3's (as you're proposing). Unfair to give some people a triple elimination tournament while other's only have a double elimination tournament. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
First he gets a better spot in the tournament, because he obviously won. Then he gets an advantage of not having to win as many games (while if he played against a player that he didn't beat, but who went 0-5 in his group he wouldn't get an advantage) | ||
|
dakalro
Romania525 Posts
Take Thorzain - MC for example. MC ended the series 4-2 but without extended series Thorzain would have won even if within the same tournament MC would have been ahead in games won. Yes it is a weird rule, but in this context, with the convoluted play system it seems fair. It is just an acknowledgement of the fact that the entirety of the games those 2 players play during the tournament is taken into account. The only other option I see for fair judgement would be to play 3xBo3s and give the win to the first to win 2 Bo3s. | ||
| ||
