EPTMLG extended Series Poll - Page 39
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
confusedcrib
United States1307 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
How exciting would the super bowl be if one team got a two touchdown lead at the beginning of the game, because of a regular season confrontation weeks or months in the past? I have yet to watch an MLG finals, in spite watching at least a dozen matches from each of the last few events. | ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
jaeh hero lost 3-4 to drg and he quite sad but if the player is rly better look demuslim 4-0 after 0-2 kawaiirice i rly love this rule its the ONLY FAIR WAY ! ps: also i totaly disagree on "make hype worse" etc no it makes hype way BIGGER mlg always bo3 (sometimes sad cause ONLY bo3) so if its 0-2 and then 3-2 for the loosing guy and then 3-3 again (drg vs herO) you can NEVER have this in a bo3 also from 0-2 to 4-2 etc its MUCH MORE hype then a normal bo3 and so its gooood for the viewers | ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
On August 30 2011 05:48 pileopoop wrote: Finals should be double bo5 with no free wins The problem with this would be that one player would have gotten to drop a Bo3 set, while the other would get to drop a Bo5 set. There is a difference and it does matter. For example, in the IPL2 Nerchio lost in the first round in a Bo3 which isn't that hard to lose with some bad luck even if you're the better player, a Bo5 is significantly harder to lose so the winner's bracket finalist being allowed to lose 1 Bo5 is a bigger advantage than being able to lose 1 Bo3. I think the standard double elimination is fine, with consistent Bo3s, it's the most fair. On August 30 2011 06:04 0neder wrote: Doesn't matter if the rule is fair. It kills the hype. How exciting would the super bowl be if one team got a two touchdown lead at the beginning of the game, because of a regular season confrontation weeks or months in the past? I have yet to watch an MLG finals, in spite watching at least a dozen matches from each of the last few events. To my knowledge, the lead up to the super bowl isn't double elimination, it's single elimination. Even if they removed the extended series, you'd still require one team to win two matches while one team only has to win one. This is the most fair way to do it, and fairness matters. So do you not think a standard double elimination final is as anticlimactic? Because the fair solution to that is simply using single elimination. Fairness matters, even in competitive sports, this isn't an issue for Football because they don't use double elimination(as far as I know). | ||
|
The Touch
United Kingdom667 Posts
On August 30 2011 06:01 ak1knight wrote: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. Obviously I disagree :p I think that giving you the wiggle room to lose two or three times as many maps as somebody else at the same stage of the tournament, purely because of who you're playing, is at least as unfair as being eliminated by somebody who you have a winning record against. I also just realised (having searched through the thred for my name to figure out where I needed to read from again) that I posted way back when the thread was made too, and I said much the same things then. Basically I don't like double elimination much at all, because it throws up all of these annoying fairness issues. I much prefer a broader group stage in the Championship Bracket, which rewards and punishes your consistency far more than the current system. I don't mean to bash iNcontroL here, but he had a bad MLG, winning just a single BO3 series all tournament, and still finished 22nd overall. A system which allows that to happen is just badly designed IMO. I think you avoid a lot of the unfairness issues by more strongly emphasising round robin group play, and with an ongoing format (as MLG have outlined for 2012) you can accomodate larger groups because time constraints are eased substantially. For example, NASL had 45 games played per 10-player group, compared to just 15 per 6-player group at MLG. But MLG are married to double-elim, so I guess my preferences don't really matter in this regard. | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
| ||
|
Incomplet
United Kingdom1419 Posts
-Grand Final is played as a BO7 with no game advantage / handicap to either player to optimize entertainment value and prevent anti-climatic ending -Player that battles through the championship bracket undefeated receives a separate smaller prize pool, independent of the normal winnings. ie, if that player wins MLG, he will receive separate prize pool + 5k. If he loses then he receives the separate prize pool + 3k. The purpose of this is to reward the player for his excellent performance. -Of course this will increase the amount that MLG has to splurge out to players, so a viable alternative if this exceeds the budget, is to make the "separate prize pool" consisting of the total donations from viewers and fans. This system is adopted from Total Biscuits Shoutcraft Invitational, proved to work rather impressively. Furthermore this system will allow viewers to directly reward the players and can be perceived as a way of thanking them for provided us with entertainment. With these procedures in place, we satisfy both entertainment and fairness for the viewers and players respectively. The pool play undefeated champ will be rewarded for his efforts regardless of the outcome of the grand final, and the viewers will not be at risk of getting a disappointing 2 game grand final. Problem solved! | ||
|
Minored
Brazil88 Posts
and takes away a LOT of the exciment in the tournament | ||
|
repsac
91 Posts
| ||
|
RoboBob
United States798 Posts
The championship bracket is single elimination for 30 players. It's double elimination for only 4 players, the people who placed #1 in pool groups. If someone makes #2-6 in their pool and fights their way through other top players to get the final, then I don't see why they should be punished for their pool performances. That guy won all of their matches in the championship bracket just like the top #1 pool player. He was already punished for his pool performance by receiving a lower seed in the bracket. Why double the punishment and require him to win an extra BO3? The top #1 in pool player could have very well coasted on an easy pool. The current system generates really crappy semifinals and finals. Throw on an extended series and its even worse. I wish that MLG would ditch the pool play and switch to something closer to MSL format. Just with 4 groups instead of 8, and BO3s instead of BO1s. So it would be the 4 GSL invites (1 per group) and then the top 12 players by rank points points (3 per group). Then the winner of each group advances to a single elimination BO8 on championship sunday. And the #2 in each group battles against the 4 open bracket survivors in order to fill the 4 remaining spots in the BO8. That way the tournament can end with a bunch of BO5/BO7s instead of a crummy BO3s that are over after 2 games. | ||
|
Bobster
Germany3075 Posts
As far as I'm concerned, it has no place in either MLG or any other Starcraft II tournament. | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
When you get to the finals and it's over in just 2 games it's a pathetically anti-climactic let-down. IMHO finals should always be a full bo7 for the full epicness that we've come to expect having watched OSL, MSL, GSL, etc Plus the excuse before was that it works for halo, and halo is the main game so MLG would keep it. Now SC2 is main stage, I don't even know if they're going to continue having halo, so it's pretty obvious I think what needs to be done. | ||
|
Bobster
Germany3075 Posts
On August 30 2011 06:08 CoR wrote: every mlg again the question ... jaeh hero lost 3-4 to drg and he quite sad but if the player is rly better look demuslim 4-0 after 0-2 kawaiirice i rly love this rule its the ONLY FAIR WAY ! ps: also i totaly disagree on "make hype worse" etc no it makes hype way BIGGER mlg always bo3 (sometimes sad cause ONLY bo3) so if its 0-2 and then 3-2 for the loosing guy and then 3-3 again (drg vs herO) you can NEVER have this in a bo3 also from 0-2 to 4-2 etc its MUCH MORE hype then a normal bo3 and so its gooood for the viewers Yes, more games are definitely better. Having the latter rounds be Bo5 instead of Bo3 (and the finals Bo7) provides all the positive things you mention while avoiding the many shortcomings of the extended series.  Few people here are for removing the extended series and leaving everything else as is - obviously we want to make adjustments and improvements to the format - and removing the extended series is a necessary step towards that. Plus the excuse before was that it works for halo, and halo is the main game so MLG would keep it. Now SC2 is main stage, I don't even know if they're going to continue having halo, so it's pretty obvious I think what needs to be done. To be fair, I think that was really just that - an excuse, hastily thrown together in absence of actual compelling arguments for the extended series. They acted in a rush to comply to SC2's explosive growth in popularity during 2010 and copied the Halo system because it was the easiest thing to do from a logistical standpoint. But now that so much time has passed since then, the community doesn't accept this anymore. It needs to be changed. | ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
On September 05 2011 05:12 RoboBob wrote: Guys, MLG is not double elimination. Sure the open bracket is double elimination, but the chances of someone slogging it out and placing highly in the championship bracket are *very* slim. The championship bracket is single elimination for 30 players. It's double elimination for only 4 players, the people who placed #1 in pool groups. If someone makes #2-6 in their pool and fights their way through other top players to get the final, then I don't see why they should be punished for their pool performances. That guy won all of their matches in the championship bracket just like the top #1 pool player. He was already punished for his pool performance by receiving a lower seed in the bracket. Why double the punishment and require him to win an extra BO3? The top #1 in pool player could have very well coasted on an easy pool. The current system generates really crappy semifinals and finals. Throw on an extended series and its even worse. I wish that MLG would ditch the pool play and switch to something closer to MSL format. Just with 4 groups instead of 8, and BO3s instead of BO1s. So it would be the 4 GSL invites (1 per group) and then the top 12 players by rank points points (3 per group). Then the winner of each group advances to a single elimination BO8 on championship sunday. And the #2 in each group battles against the 4 open bracket survivors in order to fill the 4 remaining spots in the BO8. That way the tournament can end with a bunch of BO5/BO7s instead of a crummy BO3s that are over after 2 games. Now this makes sense. I like it. | ||
|
Carl_Sagan
United States226 Posts
| ||
|
rwrzr
United States1980 Posts
| ||
|
Gummy
United States2180 Posts
| ||
|
Karliath
United States2214 Posts
| ||
|
Jakkerr
Netherlands2549 Posts
If u place high in ur group, lets say u place 2nd u get far higher in the bracket then someone that finished 4th. If they meet again it means the guy that got 4th first had to play 2 more rounds too actually deserve the chance to face the 2nd placed guy again. It's absolutely ridiculous he would have to start 2-0 or 2-1 behind then/ | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
| ||
| ||
