|
On August 29 2011 16:15 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 16:06 Joseph123 wrote:
It is funny how MLG creates problems from nothing without any logical reason .. Basically they can have a standard format all bo3, winner bracket final bo5 and grand final bo7. But instead they create a format that is absolutely unfair to the players and less interesting for the viewers. Finals 2 games? Seriously? Now compare that to the epic NASL finals. The NASL finals were single elimination, if you want single elimination that's fine but what we're seeing is pretty much the absolute proper implementation of double elimination as far as the format goes. Doing a Bo7 with a 1 game lead is still unfair because one game is not comparable to the ability to drop a set which the loser's bracket finalist was granted, it just isn't comparable no matter how you swing it. The only direct fair way to work out a final in this scenario using the double elimination format is to have an Extended Series or two Bo3s. So yeah, I'd be fine with removing the extended series rule if we consider each series individual, but in the finals it would still have to be 2 Bo3s for the loser's bracket finalist, 1 Bo3 for the winner's bracket finalist in order to be fair.
I was definitely talking about comparing NASL Finals games Puma vs MC to MLG GRAND FINAL.
Maybe it is unfair to have only 1 game advantage, but the loser has to play a whole SERIES before that and it is definitely fairer than 2-0 advantage.
|
On August 29 2011 16:28 Joseph123 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 16:15 Mordiford wrote:On August 29 2011 16:06 Joseph123 wrote:
It is funny how MLG creates problems from nothing without any logical reason .. Basically they can have a standard format all bo3, winner bracket final bo5 and grand final bo7. But instead they create a format that is absolutely unfair to the players and less interesting for the viewers. Finals 2 games? Seriously? Now compare that to the epic NASL finals. The NASL finals were single elimination, if you want single elimination that's fine but what we're seeing is pretty much the absolute proper implementation of double elimination as far as the format goes. Doing a Bo7 with a 1 game lead is still unfair because one game is not comparable to the ability to drop a set which the loser's bracket finalist was granted, it just isn't comparable no matter how you swing it. The only direct fair way to work out a final in this scenario using the double elimination format is to have an Extended Series or two Bo3s. So yeah, I'd be fine with removing the extended series rule if we consider each series individual, but in the finals it would still have to be 2 Bo3s for the loser's bracket finalist, 1 Bo3 for the winner's bracket finalist in order to be fair. I was definitely talking about comparing NASL Finals games Puma vs MC to MLG GRAND FINAL. Maybe it is unfair to have only 1 game advantage, but the loser has to play a whole SERIES before that and it is definitely fairer than 2-0 advantage.
Dude, the NASL grand finals were that way because it's single elimination. The format matters.
In double elimination, the loser's bracket finalist would still have to lose two Best of 3s if you don't want the extended series and the winner's bracket finalist would have to win 1. We saw this with MMA vs MVP. MVP only had to win one Bo3 and MMA would still have had to win another one if he had won the first. This is how double elimination works. Removing the double elimination advantage for the winner's bracket finalist would be unfair.
So yeah, it wouldn't have been 2-0 in favor of Bomber if you removed the extended series, but Bomber would still just have to win two games in a row, while Coca would have had to win four games without letting Bomber get two in a row.
|
On August 29 2011 16:28 Joseph123 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 16:15 Mordiford wrote:On August 29 2011 16:06 Joseph123 wrote:
It is funny how MLG creates problems from nothing without any logical reason .. Basically they can have a standard format all bo3, winner bracket final bo5 and grand final bo7. But instead they create a format that is absolutely unfair to the players and less interesting for the viewers. Finals 2 games? Seriously? Now compare that to the epic NASL finals. The NASL finals were single elimination, if you want single elimination that's fine but what we're seeing is pretty much the absolute proper implementation of double elimination as far as the format goes. Doing a Bo7 with a 1 game lead is still unfair because one game is not comparable to the ability to drop a set which the loser's bracket finalist was granted, it just isn't comparable no matter how you swing it. The only direct fair way to work out a final in this scenario using the double elimination format is to have an Extended Series or two Bo3s. So yeah, I'd be fine with removing the extended series rule if we consider each series individual, but in the finals it would still have to be 2 Bo3s for the loser's bracket finalist, 1 Bo3 for the winner's bracket finalist in order to be fair. I was definitely talking about comparing NASL Finals games Puma vs MC to MLG GRAND FINAL. Maybe it is unfair to have only 1 game advantage, but the loser has to play a whole SERIES before that and it is definitely fairer than 2-0 advantage.
NASL is single elimination. MLG is double elimination.
Why don't you compare it to IPL instead who also have double elim. Was the final there more exciting than MLGs? I'd say it was about the same. Bomber isn't gonna lose 1-4 and WhiteRa isn't gonna drop two Bo3s. If MLG final starts 2-1 instead of 2-0 I'd even say that it's more exciting than your average double elim two Bo3s.
If you don't like double elim that fine, but that's got nothing to do with extended series.
|
Dislike. Especcialy when Hero lost 2-3...
|
On August 29 2011 16:41 ToastieNL wrote:
Dislike. Especcialy when Hero lost 2-3...
yeah, i think you mean, when hero won 3:1 (or was it even 3:0?) but officially lost -.-
the rule makes no sense and everybody is saying this since a year now. mlg has improved in so many points, but this really easy to fix point is still here.
|
My opinion on this is different to most people
1) I think the rule is perfectly fair for the two people playing the game. It sucks to be eliminated in a tournament setting to somebody who you may have a winning record over (say by winning a BO3 2-0, and losing a 2nd BO3 1-2). I really don't think the loser in the first game has much complaint in that regard.
2) I think the rule is unfair compared to other people playing other games at the same stage of the tournament.
For example, let's take KawaiiRice v DeMusliM. KawaiiRice beats DeMusliM 2-0 in the Open Bracket, so when they met again in CLR2, KawaiiRice has a 2-0 lead going into the game. As far as KawaiiRice and DeMusliM are concerned, I think that's a perfectly fair and reasonable thing. Whoever wins over an extended BO7 deserves to stay in the tournament, at least more so that somebody who loses over two BO3s but just has the order of the games fall in their favour.
But the problem I have is that KawaiiRice can afford to lose 3 games, while winning 2, and still advance to CLR3. The other 6 players playing the other 3 games at that stage of the tournament could only afford to lose 1 game. That gives KawaiiRice an unfair advantage over those other players, because he has a higher chance of staying in the tournament than they do.
In fixing one injustice, MLG have created another.
|
On August 29 2011 17:04 The Touch wrote:
My opinion on this is different to most people
1) I think the rule is perfectly fair for the two people playing the game. It sucks to be eliminated in a tournament setting to somebody who you may have a winning record over (say by winning a BO3 2-0, and losing a 2nd BO3 1-2). I really don't think the loser in the first game has much complaint in that regard.
2) I think the rule is unfair compared to other people playing other games at the same stage of the tournament.
For example, let's take KawaiiRice v DeMusliM. KawaiiRice beats DeMusliM 2-0 in the Open Bracket, so when they met again in CLR2, KawaiiRice has a 2-0 lead going into the game. As far as KawaiiRice and DeMusliM are concerned, I think that's a perfectly fair and reasonable thing. Whoever wins over an extended BO7 deserves to stay in the tournament, at least more so that somebody who loses over two BO3s but just has the order of the games fall in their favour.
But the problem I have is that KawaiiRice can afford to lose 3 games, while winning 2, and still advance to CLR3. The other 6 players playing the other 3 games at that stage of the tournament could only afford to lose 1 game. That gives KawaiiRice an unfair advantage over those other players, because he has a higher chance of staying in the tournament than they do.
In fixing one injustice, MLG have created another.
Intriguing analysis. I remember seeing a YouTube video where IdrA sighs at having to face TriMaster instead of Haypro because he would have been favored in the extended series against the latter. In this sense, there is a massive luck of the draw factor in regards to where you can get an advantage in the tournament. I do think this is worth noting and could be rectified by simply having each series stand alone.
Once again, I have to emphasize since so many people seem to be confusing these things. This does not mean much in regards to the finals, it simply means that the finals will still be winner bracket player 1 Bo3, looser bracket player 2 Bo3s, which is fair.
|
I really dislike the extended series rule. It makes no logical sense in 1 simple way: if 2 players face each other twice, why is the one who is supposedly "better" supposed to have another advantage. If it worked the other way around (i.e. the player who lost the first series gets the advantage) it would make more sense, while imo, still be effectively senseless as the series is supposed to say who is the better player without any differentials between the players except the obvious race choice, color, etc. MLG would be more exciting without this rule. Now everything is dependant on the pool play.
|
Ok. Some commentary on the MLG system in general. I would have no problem with the two Bo3 format in a standard double elimination tournament. Here's my problem - In this tournament (and at columbus before it) we had people win there group with an imperfect record. (4-1 in all cases of which I am aware). This means that, if the second placed (or whoever) player in the group eventually makes it to the final against this player, they would have to play two Bo3s against a player that they already beat. That, in and of itself, goes against the basic idea of a double elim tournament. In these instances, having the extended series makes sense, and might even be necessary to ensure a fair tournament. But in other cases, it leads to ridiculous situations, like HerO's futile 3-0 against DRG on Championship Sunday. However, this brings me to a few other points.
1. Open Bracket players who place into pool play are likely to be physically/mentally exhausted, and, when playing against such high caliber players, are unlikely to perform their best. In these cases, extended series would not accurately reflect the skill balance between the players.
2. Getting placed into pool play is only really beneficial if you can win the group, outside of the fewer number of games you would have to play for higher places, etc. By intentionally losing to a player considered significantly inferior, a player may actually give his self an advantage on Championship Sunday, by avoiding disadvantaged positions due to extended series losses in pool play. How is that for encouraging players to perform their best?
3. Another, similar instance to the above occurs in the Winners Bracket Finals. Losing in this game and subsequently reaching the finals can result in a larger disadvantage than if the player had lost in the previous round (assuming that the players who reach the finals are the same in both situations).
As I see it, there are a few possible solutions to the problems presented. One that I personally like would be to change the way the pool play works. Instead of having only the first in each group qualify, instead have the top 3 in each pool qualify for the upper bracket, seeded based on qualifying position, against a randomly drawn other group of appropriate rank (without extended series). This does a few things that help make the tournament overall more fair. For one, it stops players like Kiwikaki, from this tournament, who lose out on first place in the group by a single game, from being left with no recourse after a single Bo3 loss in the open bracket. It provides a larger incentive for open bracket players to make it to group play, and it helps maintain the feeling of an actual double elim tourney. More than this, though, it stops the first seed of the group from having such a ridiculous advantage over the other seeds, leading to more exciting and more meaningful games, and a more exciting tournament in general.
|
On August 29 2011 17:04 The Touch wrote:
My opinion on this is different to most people
1) I think the rule is perfectly fair for the two people playing the game. It sucks to be eliminated in a tournament setting to somebody who you may have a winning record over (say by winning a BO3 2-0, and losing a 2nd BO3 1-2). I really don't think the loser in the first game has much complaint in that regard.
2) I think the rule is unfair compared to other people playing other games at the same stage of the tournament.
For example, let's take KawaiiRice v DeMusliM. KawaiiRice beats DeMusliM 2-0 in the Open Bracket, so when they met again in CLR2, KawaiiRice has a 2-0 lead going into the game. As far as KawaiiRice and DeMusliM are concerned, I think that's a perfectly fair and reasonable thing. Whoever wins over an extended BO7 deserves to stay in the tournament, at least more so that somebody who loses over two BO3s but just has the order of the games fall in their favour.
But the problem I have is that KawaiiRice can afford to lose 3 games, while winning 2, and still advance to CLR3. The other 6 players playing the other 3 games at that stage of the tournament could only afford to lose 1 game. That gives KawaiiRice an unfair advantage over those other players, because he has a higher chance of staying in the tournament than they do.
In fixing one injustice, MLG have created another.
I wanted to write something similar when I saw this post. I agree 100%.
There is also a second point, that annoys me from a spectator point of view. The "extended series games" are usually less fun to watch for me. I understand the logic behind it but I always have the impression, that the loser from the previous set will just loose again because he is at such a big disadvantage. Yes, I know that spectacular comebacks are possible, but I see it and go: "Meh, I already know how this will end.".
|
On August 29 2011 17:04 The Touch wrote:
My opinion on this is different to most people
1) I think the rule is perfectly fair for the two people playing the game. It sucks to be eliminated in a tournament setting to somebody who you may have a winning record over (say by winning a BO3 2-0, and losing a 2nd BO3 1-2). I really don't think the loser in the first game has much complaint in that regard.
2) I think the rule is unfair compared to other people playing other games at the same stage of the tournament.
For example, let's take KawaiiRice v DeMusliM. KawaiiRice beats DeMusliM 2-0 in the Open Bracket, so when they met again in CLR2, KawaiiRice has a 2-0 lead going into the game. As far as KawaiiRice and DeMusliM are concerned, I think that's a perfectly fair and reasonable thing. Whoever wins over an extended BO7 deserves to stay in the tournament, at least more so that somebody who loses over two BO3s but just has the order of the games fall in their favour.
But the problem I have is that KawaiiRice can afford to lose 3 games, while winning 2, and still advance to CLR3. The other 6 players playing the other 3 games at that stage of the tournament could only afford to lose 1 game. That gives KawaiiRice an unfair advantage over those other players, because he has a higher chance of staying in the tournament than they do.
In fixing one injustice, MLG have created another.
This is the best point against extended series.
No other tournaments use extended series apart from MLG.
It's unfair to the players competing in the other matches of the same round.
|
It's total bullshit. With Koreans attending the finals is completely lopsided and boring to watch with an extended series. It's completely ludicrous trying to catch up in a series against a player who hasn't lost a single series and has had the most time to prepare since he's had to play the fewest amount of games of all the players at the tournament.
|
i think its a good rule. you 2-0 a player and go to the champion ship. he beats the next guy and goes to the finals against you and beats you 1-2... so the score is now 3-2 but your 2nd place and hes 1st... that would be silly.
|
I guess I will never get why people are so upset about this. I've read most of this thread, and while I understand the point that Touch wrote, I just don't think it matters. If you lose to someone and you meet them again, you now have to play an extended series. Yes KawaiiRice only had to win 2 games and could lose 3, which I guess could be seen as an advantage vs other players at the same level of the bracket, but he should also get credit for his previous win against his current opponent. Frankly, I think many are blowing this way out of proportion. It doesn't break the tournament, or give anyone a massive unfair advantage.
|
I dont like the extended series rule.
For instance in the Champions League (Football) you dont see Barcelona start with 2-0 just cause they managed to beat Lyon with 2-0 in the groupstages.
The rule is not good and should be looked at. They should also look at the fact that some people just manage to stay in the groupstages even though they over and over put out bad result and the only reason that they are there is cause of 1 good run they had 3-4 MLG events ago.
|
It might be fair; it might not.
But it makes many games not fun to watch, and thus the tournament less exciting and less likely to make me buy an HQ pass (I'm genuinely undecided).
MLG should do what gets more viewers as long as players think it is still fair, and I think dropping extended series would do that.
|
I'd honestly be fine with the removal of the extended series rule as long as they maintain standard double elimination or switch entirely to single elimination.
The player from the winner's bracket should still have access to double elimination in the finals and the player from the loser's bracket will have used that up already. I have no interest in sacrificing fairness in a tournament simply because it's more exciting when it's unfair, I believe that the sanctity of the competition should be the primary priority above all else.
So yeah, Extended Series... Don't care, keep it or lose it. Double elimination, keep it or lose it. Just don't go to the finals and then tell the winner's bracket finalist he doesn't get the same advantage that every single other person in the tournament got because he won too much.
|
Finals should be double bo5 with no free wins
|
The rule as it is is fine since it helps the better player win, but I would be fine with standard double elim all the way through too.
|
On August 29 2011 17:04 The Touch wrote:
My opinion on this is different to most people
1) I think the rule is perfectly fair for the two people playing the game. It sucks to be eliminated in a tournament setting to somebody who you may have a winning record over (say by winning a BO3 2-0, and losing a 2nd BO3 1-2). I really don't think the loser in the first game has much complaint in that regard.
2) I think the rule is unfair compared to other people playing other games at the same stage of the tournament.
For example, let's take KawaiiRice v DeMusliM. KawaiiRice beats DeMusliM 2-0 in the Open Bracket, so when they met again in CLR2, KawaiiRice has a 2-0 lead going into the game. As far as KawaiiRice and DeMusliM are concerned, I think that's a perfectly fair and reasonable thing. Whoever wins over an extended BO7 deserves to stay in the tournament, at least more so that somebody who loses over two BO3s but just has the order of the games fall in their favour.
But the problem I have is that KawaiiRice can afford to lose 3 games, while winning 2, and still advance to CLR3. The other 6 players playing the other 3 games at that stage of the tournament could only afford to lose 1 game. That gives KawaiiRice an unfair advantage over those other players, because he has a higher chance of staying in the tournament than they do.
In fixing one injustice, MLG have created another.
Your first point I really agree with, with extended series the champion will have a winning record or no record versus every player in the tourny, while everyone else has a losing record to at least one other person, it's entirely fair.
Your second point is hardly big enough to counteract the fairness of the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
