EPTMLG extended Series Poll - Page 44
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
| ||
|
Alvar
Sweden61 Posts
On October 17 2011 08:26 Hypertension wrote: The extended series rule is basically making the players a best of 7. In the GSL finals, when Nestea had 2-0 leads over Losira or Inca, no one asked that the series be reset to make it more entertaining. What kind of an argument is this? It is in no way the same situation. | ||
|
Hypertension
United States802 Posts
On October 17 2011 08:35 Alvar wrote: What kind of an argument is this? It is in no way the same situation. It is the same in that the better player had earned a huge advantage, thus creating a more boring series overall | ||
|
BuddhaMonk
781 Posts
On October 17 2011 08:52 Hypertension wrote: It is the same in that the better player had earned a huge advantage, thus creating a more boring series overall Except for the fact that it's a totally different situation. | ||
|
Pinski
United States126 Posts
On October 17 2011 08:22 grigorin wrote: Can't wait till someday the one from the upper bracket is down 0:2 or 1:2 in the grand-finals because of extended series. I'd love that to happen. | ||
|
Hypertension
United States802 Posts
On October 17 2011 08:54 BuddhaMonk wrote: Except for the fact that it's a totally different situation. Ok, I said how they are similar. Why don't you tell me the difference? | ||
|
Dhalphir
Australia1305 Posts
These are objectively factual statements. | ||
|
Dhalphir
Australia1305 Posts
On October 17 2011 08:57 Hypertension wrote: Ok, I said how they are similar. Why don't you tell me the difference? Because the 2-0 lead was in the same series, as part of the finals, and not a leftover from a previous series. | ||
|
Nadir
Australia114 Posts
| ||
|
Hypertension
United States802 Posts
On October 17 2011 09:00 Dhalphir wrote: Because the 2-0 lead was in the same series, as part of the finals, and not a leftover from a previous series. But the whole point of the extended series is that the finals is an extension of the previous series, not 2 separate series. | ||
|
BuddhaMonk
781 Posts
On October 17 2011 08:57 Hypertension wrote: Ok, I said how they are similar. Why don't you tell me the difference? This thread is littered with the differences, but one is a player who wins and does well in pool play gets an inherent advantage based on his seeding in the championship bracket, yet for some reason, due to the extended series he gets an additional advantage if he meets a player he beat in pool play. How come that player gets to play fewer games, is slotted higher up in the championship bracket and also gets the extended series? There's more than one advantage there. Totally different than your example. | ||
|
PepperoniPiZZa
Sierra Leone1660 Posts
| ||
|
Chewie
Denmark708 Posts
From a players perspective I can understand why you would think its more fair. Because your previous encounters matter in the long term. It means that working hard pays off. That must be the feelings of the player? However... The notion that a prior match in a tourney should count in a later match is totally arbitrary to me. The goal with extended series seems to be that the player who has performed the best in a prior match with the same opponent, should be rewarded. In the name of fairness, we extend any future matchups into one long series. Because the goal of the tourney is to find the best player. You can easily extend this line of thought. Why is this limited only to the matches between the two players? Player A has performed exceptionally well in the pool, 3-0ing everybody but player B. Player B is being dominated in the pool. Even though they havent met, we can infer that Player A is better than Player B. So shouldnt Player A be rewarded an advantage in their matchup? There are all kinds of ways we can determine the skill of a player, which we could add through point systems and what not, to try to be sure the winner is fairly determined. Truely we should adjust for game balance as well? Is it fair to play protoss in a tourney atm? Hell, why is the extended series limited to the current tourney only? Its just as fair however long you extend the series. Just be simple about it imo. Either the match is finished, or its not. I think limiting the series to just the one sit down, focuses the competition for the viewers and the players. And it removes a lot of other factors... like player X was tired before, but now he is rested. Where is fairness in that? Player X is much better at adapting to a new opponent, but he needs a day to diggest the things he learned from the last match. Whats fair here? Who ever rests well and prepares the best for the match, and performes best in the moment, should and will gain a natural advantage. Its the one match. Its that moment now. That moment where there is no turning back. Everything is on the line now. Now all your training, and all your hard work, and all your experience, and all of your heart will be tested by fire. You go for it. And we all cheer you on. Thats what sport is imo. What other sports use extended series? I cant think of any off the top of my head. | ||
|
Alvar
Sweden61 Posts
On October 17 2011 09:03 Hypertension wrote: But the whole point of the extended series is that the finals is an extension of the previous series, not 2 separate series. It is first of all not only used in the final. And extended series removes the ability for one poor sucker to even get to use the advantages of a looser bracket, while everyone else that does not face the same person that eliminated them from winners or pool gets to use the ability to loose twice in the tournament. Also the hilarity of what some people above suggests. What if Hero had advanced to the final facing huk. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On October 17 2011 08:11 hmunkey wrote: Honestly I prefer extended series in MLG simply because all the games are played so close together. If MLG was held over the course of several weeks, there wouldn't really be any reasonable way to support extended series. However, because parts 1 and 2 of matches can all be held on the same day it is undeniably unfair to ignore a players previous wins against the same player only a few hours ago. They're not ignoring player's previous wins. Winning allowed them to be placed further in the bracket. Just look at the bracket for Idra vs Boxer for example. Boxer had to beat Stephanos and Sase to reach the same point as Idra. That is two chances of getting elminated for Boxer while Idra gets 0. Therefore, the wins essentially gave Idra free BYES in the bracket; less chance of getting eliminated and less stamina draining. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7227 Posts
| ||
Loodah
335 Posts
| ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On October 17 2011 08:52 Hypertension wrote: It is the same in that the better player had earned a huge advantage, thus creating a more boring series overall No, your GSL bo7 comparison would be more accurate like this: Nestea is up 2-0 against Losira, then they make Losira play (and must win) a Bo3 from each of the two semi finalists (forgot who it was at that time) before continuing this bo7 against Nestea. This is essentially what MLG is doing. Boxer had to play Stephano and Sase before reaching Idra while Idra sat there just waiting. Still sounds fair? | ||
|
Kal_rA
United States2925 Posts
On October 17 2011 08:30 KimJongChill wrote: I think we all hate this, lol. Pretty much  This isn't Halo. If it was like Halo it would work fine, but its not. Sigh. | ||
|
Mementoss
Canada2595 Posts
| ||
| ||
