EPTI hate the rule so much that it's a credit to MLG Columbus that i didn't feel the rule ruined the tournament at all.
MLG extended Series Poll - Page 33
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Goibon
New Zealand8185 Posts
I hate the rule so much that it's a credit to MLG Columbus that i didn't feel the rule ruined the tournament at all. | ||
|
Ziktomini
United Kingdom377 Posts
| ||
|
Maes
Denmark18 Posts
Another bizarre thing about this system is, that you can risk having the overall final start at 0-0 IE no advantage to the guy who wins the upper bracket, this would happen if they two players haven't previously met in the tournament, and that in my opinion is retarded  | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On June 08 2011 00:56 Maes wrote: Im generally against it because from my perspective if player A and B meet twice in a tournament the player who won the first game has had the advantage of a shorter route AND the safety net before second meeting (arguing mainly from a double elimination perspective). I don't see how B should be penalized for losing first game at this point. Another bizarre thing about this system is, that you can risk having the overall final start at 0-0 IE no advantage to the guy who wins the upper bracket, this would happen if they two players haven't previously met in the tournament, and that in my opinion is retarded There is no case where this would happen, I don't believe. They'd just play two series if the winner lost the first one. | ||
|
Philodox
Canada17 Posts
| ||
Leviwtf
174 Posts
However, I see how as a viewer people would not like it. Since being up 2 games in a BO7 is a huge advantage and can make the finals not as exciting since the 2 game lead can seem insurmountable given the two players are very close in skill. I do kind of like how it makes every game played between top contenders very important even if its round 1. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
On June 08 2011 06:25 Leviwtf wrote: Lets say MLG was double elimination with a winners/losers bracket. This gives each player 2 "lives" before they are knocked out of the tournament. The final would be winner of the winners bracket vs winner of the losers bracket. The winner of the winner's bracket can lose in a BO5 or BO7 series but he has only used 1 life, yet he loses the tournament. There is no advantage in going undefeated and winning the winners bracket. I think extended series is the most logical way to run a tournament. Another approach would be to give the winner of the winner's bracket some other kind of advantage, like being able to pick all the maps perhaps. However, I see how as a viewer people would not like it. Since being up 2 games in a BO7 is a huge advantage and can make the finals not as exciting since the 2 game lead can seem insurmountable given the two players are very close in skill. I do kind of like how it makes every game played between top contenders very important even if its round 1. Couldn't you just have take some moeny from 1st place and make that bonus money for the winner of the winner's bracket. Don't care about prize pool, care about having some epic series. | ||
|
HeadDesk
United States171 Posts
On June 08 2011 06:25 Leviwtf wrote: Lets say MLG was double elimination with a winners/losers bracket. This gives each player 2 "lives" before they are knocked out of the tournament. The final would be winner of the winners bracket vs winner of the losers bracket. The winner of the winner's bracket can lose in a BO5 or BO7 series but he has only used 1 life, yet he loses the tournament. There is no advantage in going undefeated and winning the winners bracket. I think extended series is the most logical way to run a tournament. If they had never played before there would be 2 Bo3's i believe (Loser's bracket must win both - Winner's bracket must win one). (Therefore making your argument for it invalid because you failed to know the facts). (or it might be they start up 2-0 in a Bo7... or the 2 Bo3's.. but there is an advantage). And technically - for it to be truly double elimination with the Extended Series. The winner's bracket person SHOULD have to lose the Bo7 that he starts up 2-0 or 2-1 as that would be his "first life" then, he SHOULD have to lose a Bo3 afterwards because after the Bo7 they would be on "even" ground. But, alas - this is not the case. And extended series when implemented in a double elimination tournament gives many players 3-4 "lives" (depending on how many extended series they played). | ||
|
Junbugger
United States118 Posts
I beat my brother 2-0. He goes to the loser's bracket. He wins his next game and I lose my next game. By some chance, we meet again in the loser's bracket. He wins 2-1. Wait....didn't I win 3 games against him? And he only won 2? What makes it so different than me winning before, but now because it's later on in the tournament, his win is more important? It should be 1 best of 7, rather than 2 best of threes. Now, some people might say, "wait. These are 2 separate occurrences. Two separate instances of the same situation. Obviously, things will turn out differently the second time than the first time." My argument to that is this: the more skilled player should be the one that should win. I don't believe in the underdog unless they have the potential to win the entire thing. The less skilled player should lose, and the higher skilled player should win. Whoever has the most skill should win the entire tournament. Things like easy brackets and hard brackets and fatigue and such play towards that skill. If you're skilled enough to beat anybody you're faced up against, you should win. If your opponent is fatigued, than obviously you're the more skilled player in that instance. Some people disagree that a tournament should be run to make the most skilled player win. I understand that iNcontroL believes this way. From what I understand, they want the tournament to judge the winner of the tournament, not the most skilled player. I think that that is the argument that is the root of the extended series argument. | ||
|
Ouga
Finland645 Posts
There are two separate problems, that just add to each others. Brackets should be "turned" better to have same players meeting again less frequently. Also if there has to be edge given to winner, it should be 1-0 bo7 or bo5 max - if any. It can totally kill motivation to play the whole series if you're forced to win 4-1 against a good player, often in early stages. | ||
|
Scereye
Austria154 Posts
if Alicia wouldve won 2-0 he would've also took those games with him. Its not like Tod got the 2-0 lead for nothing. | ||
|
WightyCity
Canada887 Posts
| ||
|
TaKemE
Denmark1045 Posts
On July 31 2011 22:08 Scereye wrote: Well Alicia lost 2-0 vs Tod. I dont see why its unfair to play an extended series vs the same player? if Alicia wouldve won 2-0 he would've also took those games with him. Its not like Tod got the 2-0 lead for nothing. Because its mostly about luck if you meet the guy you have already played. ToD lost just as many games as Alicia in the tournament but because his lucky to meet a guy he won against he gets a huge advantage, now ToD can lose 2xbo3 and not be out of tournament but all others who dont meet again will unless they already played each other. ToD and Alicia both lost a bo3 in the tournament and they should be on even ground when they meet again or els Alicia will get a huge disadvantage compare to ToD in the tournament unless ToD also meets the guy he lost to later. | ||
|
vrok
Sweden2541 Posts
| ||
|
Dimagus
United States1004 Posts
| ||
|
shockaslim
United States1104 Posts
On July 31 2011 22:11 WightyCity wrote: i like the extended series. yay I bet you are also a fan of ToD. There is no fathomable reason for someone to think that extended series is a good idea. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
| ||
|
Ouga
Finland645 Posts
| ||
|
Pengu
England226 Posts
On July 31 2011 22:49 shockaslim wrote: I bet you are also a fan of ToD. There is no fathomable reason for someone to think that extended series is a good idea. There is ? You get something for a win right ? If there was no lower bracket the other player would be out of the whole thing, because they have the lower bracket it gives people a chance to make a mistake. If someone wins 3 games vs someone else's two games, how could it be possible for the person that won less games to actually stay in the tournament. MLG runs the tournament how they wish personally i like the idea as you gain an advantage for your previous effort and win. If this was say, TSL TOD would never have to play the same person again as he would be out with 2-0 | ||
|
Ouga
Finland645 Posts
On July 31 2011 23:04 Pengu wrote: [If this was say, TSL TOD would never have to play the same person again as he would be out with 2-0 TSL was single elimination. There's no relation between double elimination having to award previous games like extended series does. Your award comes from getting to skip a lot of rounds in losers bracket. It's already easy enough that pool#1 gets instant top6 - they don't need to have advantage in upcoming sets. It's alsy lame for viewers when they realize there's often very little chance the underdog can comeback in rematch from deficit. | ||
| ||
