|
On October 17 2011 09:57 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:52 darklight54321 wrote:On October 17 2011 09:49 Alvar wrote:On October 17 2011 09:44 0neder wrote:
You should have a poll:
Regardless of fairness, is the extended series more or less exciting for viewers and hyping the finals?
That would get better results I think, because it's fair. It's just not exciting. It is not even fair! People should learn to read the arguments against extended series. It has been pointed out so many times why it is unfair and it makes it completely random if you get that extra advantage of a win or if you do not. Randomness should not be there! How is it random? Player A beat player B, therefore player b should obviously treated as if he never lost to player A if they rematch within the same tournament? Please, scroll back one or two pages and read the arguments.. player b is already treated from winning the first set by being placed further in the bracket. Stop using the same "winner needs an advantage" argument over and over again, it's already been argued to death.
It has been argued so much because it is still something that makes sense. If someone was to beat a player 2-0 and then later on lost to the player 2-1 and was eliminated it doesn't statistically make sense. Thus the extra game should be played if you are looking at it statistically (which is what the bracket does).The tournament is out to be legitimate so I doubt the rule will ever be changed so it just gives forum posters something to bitch at. If the extended series didn't exist we would just have people bitch the exact opposite point about how someone shouldn't be knocked out of the tourney by someone they already beat.
As far as viewership for something like this, it fucking sucks. Players go into a match with a worse mental state than they already have when they have lost to someone before.
|
On October 17 2011 09:33 cursor wrote:
In any other tournament style, said player that has the "unfair" disadvantage would no longer be in the tourney. So your Boxer, or your Idra or your MC... who is DOWN... wouldn't even fucking be there. They were already Eliminated in bracket play. The worst part about this rule is having to explain it to idiots.
That's not true at all. They could do a group stage into single elimination (like IEM) where the games in group stage only affect seeding, no extended series. Or they could do group stage into traditional double elimination where only in the finals does the player from the loser's bracket need to win twice, the group stage matches again have no bearing.
|
On October 17 2011 09:59 La1 wrote:
people that dont get it are dumb, its a fair rule
if you have 7 maps to play and say in round 1 you play some guy and you both play each other on 2 of those maps and you win 2-0
then you meet him in the final which is a bo7 you have already played 2 of the 7 maps
so you start 2-0 up with 5 maps to play..
not dumb at all to me..
I guess you could justify it as "fair" depending on your standards, but it is a harsh rule. You are already punished for losing to the player earlier, there isn't a need for a further punishment.
I think what MLG should do is change the championship bracket into a single elimination bracket. Then just split it up so the top 4 seeds are automatically awarded at least 8th place. Take out the extended series rule, and make the semi finals bo5 and the grand finals bo7. Something that would look like this, except much much nicer.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 17 2011 09:59 La1 wrote:
people that dont get it are dumb, its a fair rule
if you have 7 maps to play and say in round 1 you play some guy and you both play each other on 2 of those maps and you win 2-0
then you meet him in the final which is a bo7 you have already played 2 of the 7 maps
so you start 2-0 up with 5 maps to play..
not dumb at all to me..
But you're totally ignoring everything else that went on between their first encounter leading up to their second encounter.
The loser of the first bo3 had to go through a hell lot more to get that 2nd encounter.
You can't use a single Bo7 as a counter argument. Scroll back one or two pages, someone already brought it up.
The example was in a GSL finals between Nestea and Losira, Nestea goes up 2-0 in a Bo7, then Losira has to stop and go beat two other people in a Bo3 (say, MMA and MC) before being able to go back to continue the Bo7. How is this fair?
|
On October 17 2011 10:01 La1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:00 Full.tilt wrote:On October 17 2011 09:49 Jochan wrote:
You guys are just whining because the loser of extended series was down, if it was 0:2 into 4:2 or 4:3 it would be "best" "incredible" "most spectacular" series ever.... Most people would say that's a normal bo7 score - first to 4. You can have amazing comebacks in a real bo7 match without the extended series rule. the point is why do you have to rematch somebody on the same map you have already beat them on?
Of course because they also use a double elimination system which is the real root of the problem.
Making the grand finals have the guy coming from the losers bracket having to win 2 series compared the the winners bracket guy winning just one would be just as bad, although maybe easier to understand for viewers.
|
On October 17 2011 09:33 cursor wrote:
In any other tournament style, said player that has the "unfair" disadvantage would no longer be in the tourney. So your Boxer, or your Idra or your MC... who is DOWN... wouldn't even fucking be there. They were already Eliminated in bracket play. The worst part about this rule is having to explain it to idiots.
Seems as if we're not the idiots here and someone else is...
The entire tournament setup would be completely different...
|
MURICA15980 Posts
The fairest system is not always the best system.
The fairest system to determine MLG's champion would be to have a gigantic round robin of the 32 best players. The player with the most games won is crowned the champion. I think many of us will agree that that is not the ideal system.
|
On October 17 2011 10:07 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:33 cursor wrote:
In any other tournament style, said player that has the "unfair" disadvantage would no longer be in the tourney. So your Boxer, or your Idra or your MC... who is DOWN... wouldn't even fucking be there. They were already Eliminated in bracket play. The worst part about this rule is having to explain it to idiots. Seems as if we're not the idiots here and someone else is... The entire tournament setup would be completely different...
I think that's his point :/
|
Let's compare the run of Huk to the run of MC.
Huk goes 4-1 in pool play, MC goes 3-2.
Huk by winning one more series than MC has to only win two games to reach the finals (against Marineking and STC)
MC by going 3-2 has to win 6 series to reach the finals (Marineking, STC, IdrA, Puma, Ret, Rain)
Explain to me why he should be punished more when they meet just because Huk won their previous encounter when he already had to go through a lot more players.
The player is already exhausted and in a bad mental state because of a huge disadvantage, hence why there hasn't been any exciting MLG finals, and why nobody from the losers bracket has ever won a championship.
A straight up bo5 or bo7 finals seems a lot more fair and exciting to me.
Poll: My logic?Good (15) 83% Bad (3) 17% No comment (0) 0% 18 total votes Your vote: My logic? (Vote): Good
(Vote): Bad
(Vote): No comment
|
I think it's absolutely fair, and I find it hard to see other wise. Whether or not it is a good rule to have is another story.
If idra 2-0ed boxer in pool play and then boxer 2-1ed idra in the championship bracket (which is the way the wins tallied if i remember correctly) then without the rule boxer would move on. It is unclear who the better player is then, and would be unfair to advance a player without consideration of their other games. The extended series allows for the better play to come out on top, it not like it's easier to win in pool play than it is in the championship bracket.
|
On October 17 2011 10:07 Klogon wrote:
The fairest system is not always the best system.
The fairest system to determine MLG's champion would be to have a gigantic round robin of the 32 best players. The player with the most games won is crowned the champion. I think many of us will agree that that is not the ideal system.
Would be a fun watch though
|
On October 17 2011 10:04 MrDudeMan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:59 La1 wrote:
people that dont get it are dumb, its a fair rule
if you have 7 maps to play and say in round 1 you play some guy and you both play each other on 2 of those maps and you win 2-0
then you meet him in the final which is a bo7 you have already played 2 of the 7 maps
so you start 2-0 up with 5 maps to play..
not dumb at all to me..
I guess you could justify it as "fair" depending on your standards, but it is a harsh rule. You are already punished for losing to the player earlier, there isn't a need for a further punishment. I think what MLG should do is change the championship bracket into a single elimination bracket. Then just split it up so the top 4 seeds are automatically awarded at least 8th place. Take out the extended series rule, and make the semi finals bo5 and the grand finals bo7.
double elim is great because it gives top players a chance to place correctly, the way mlg does the format is awful but in other games 2x elim means if 2 top means meet round one then the one the looses can still make it to the final..
i see people say its so harsh on the looser, then don't loose.. whats more harsh? single elim? getting knocked out straight away? you have the CHANCE to come back.. thats better than nothing..
|
Canada11369 Posts
I would move beyond the whether it's fair or not. It's just bad tv/ internet streaming? It's simply anti-climatic to have a best of 3 at the very end rather than a best of 7.
Sure we got 2 short games and it was done and maybe all we would've gotten is 4 short games. However, when you get to the end and you have at least 4 games to make it or break it, there's more potential mind games more decision making for which builds to choose to close out the match. Rather than a one, two punch and we're done.
It just contains a greater potential for more storylines and comebacks when there are more games at the end. (Down 3-0 and win 4 games straight. Can't happen in a best of 3.)
|
On October 17 2011 10:02 DrOmni wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:57 Fubi wrote:On October 17 2011 09:52 darklight54321 wrote:On October 17 2011 09:49 Alvar wrote:On October 17 2011 09:44 0neder wrote:
You should have a poll:
Regardless of fairness, is the extended series more or less exciting for viewers and hyping the finals?
That would get better results I think, because it's fair. It's just not exciting. It is not even fair! People should learn to read the arguments against extended series. It has been pointed out so many times why it is unfair and it makes it completely random if you get that extra advantage of a win or if you do not. Randomness should not be there! How is it random? Player A beat player B, therefore player b should obviously treated as if he never lost to player A if they rematch within the same tournament? Please, scroll back one or two pages and read the arguments.. player b is already treated from winning the first set by being placed further in the bracket. Stop using the same "winner needs an advantage" argument over and over again, it's already been argued to death. It has been argued so much because it is still something that makes sense. If someone was to beat a player 2-0 and then later on lost to the player 2-1 and was eliminated it doesn't statistically make sense. Thus the extra game should be played if you are looking at it statistically (which is what the bracket does).The tournament is out to be legitimate so I doubt the rule will ever be changed so it just gives forum posters something to bitch at. If the extended series didn't exist we would just have people bitch the exact opposite point about how someone shouldn't be knocked out of the tourney by someone they already beat.
Here is why losing to a player while winning more games (say 3-2) can make sense: because it is never solely just a 3-2. It is more like Player B losing, 0-2, then beating a bunch of people 2-0, 2-1, etc, then finally coming back and winning 2-1, while the other player A did nothing excepting winning the first series 2-0.
It is a tournament for a reason, not a single head to head showmatch. You are trying to determine who is the best in the tournament, not who is the best between these two head to head players. Therefore you have to take the result of the whole tournament into account. Now, no one can say whether that extra game or two the winner player had is worth more than all those other people the loser had to beat inorder to get a rematch. Therefore, the most fair thing to do is to have a clean start once they meet again.
|
On November 08 2010 06:20 Zaq343 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:12 overt wrote:
If two players are in the loser's bracket no one should get an advantage. MLG wants wins in the upper bracket to mean more. Or at least that's the result of the rule.
No, MLG only wants to reduce the time of any given match, if they can. This allows them to get out of the venue in a timely manner, reduce complaints of people saying "The event lasted too long, and I have to travel across 5 states", etc.
Regardless, I believe that in the interest of high level matches, the extended series rule should be removed entirely, or if and only if time is so important that we have to eliminate games played by this 'extended series' rule, it should at least be removed after a certain mark in the tournament... e.g. losers/winners quarter/semifinals.
I believe that by having the full amount of games played, we see the full extent of how people cope with the pressure of being in such an intense situation, and by having more games, the person who is truly better in the tournament setting will prevail.
Also,
On October 17 2011 10:04 MrDudeMan wrote:
I think what MLG should do is change the championship bracket into a single elimination bracket.
You realize that this is a game with more variables and matchup differentiations in place than almost any other game in existence. There is almost no way that a Starcraft 2 tournament, especially a national tournament would have any sense of prestige or recognition by having it's system being through a single-elimination bracket.
|
On October 17 2011 10:04 MrDudeMan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:59 La1 wrote:
people that dont get it are dumb, its a fair rule
if you have 7 maps to play and say in round 1 you play some guy and you both play each other on 2 of those maps and you win 2-0
then you meet him in the final which is a bo7 you have already played 2 of the 7 maps
so you start 2-0 up with 5 maps to play..
not dumb at all to me..
I guess you could justify it as "fair" depending on your standards, but it is a harsh rule. You are already punished for losing to the player earlier, there isn't a need for a further punishment. I think what MLG should do is change the championship bracket into a single elimination bracket. Then just split it up so the top 4 seeds are automatically awarded at least 8th place. Take out the extended series rule, and make the semi finals bo5 and the grand finals bo7. .
It is harsh. I think the main advantage of the extended series is that it makes earlier games much more meaningful. You just don't get a series where one player has little to no incentive to win. But by making earlier games more meaningful the end of the tournament is less meaningful and already decided to a small extent. This gives the chance for some insane comebacks later on, but in the majority of the time the final round is easily predictable. A single elimination tournament is more random than double elimination but the finals are less predictable and therefore more exciting. Overall I like the fact that we had so many great games early in the tournament, where in other group formats players might have been tempted to hide their strategies for later on. I am willing to accept that this is the minority opinion, but I don't see why it is the "wrong" opinion.
|
On October 17 2011 10:10 La1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:04 MrDudeMan wrote:On October 17 2011 09:59 La1 wrote:
people that dont get it are dumb, its a fair rule
if you have 7 maps to play and say in round 1 you play some guy and you both play each other on 2 of those maps and you win 2-0
then you meet him in the final which is a bo7 you have already played 2 of the 7 maps
so you start 2-0 up with 5 maps to play..
not dumb at all to me..
I guess you could justify it as "fair" depending on your standards, but it is a harsh rule. You are already punished for losing to the player earlier, there isn't a need for a further punishment. I think what MLG should do is change the championship bracket into a single elimination bracket. Then just split it up so the top 4 seeds are automatically awarded at least 8th place. Take out the extended series rule, and make the semi finals bo5 and the grand finals bo7. double elim is great because it gives top players a chance to place correctly, the way mlg does the format is awful but in other games 2x elim means if 2 top means meet round one then the one the looses can still make it to the final.. i see people say its so harsh on the looser, then don't loose.. whats more harsh? single elim? getting knocked out straight away? you have the CHANCE to come back.. thats better than nothing..
No one is complaining about double elimination in this thread, we're talking about extended series rule. Please note the differences
|
On October 17 2011 10:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:Let's compare the run of Huk to the run of MC. Huk goes 4-1 in pool play, MC goes 3-2. Huk by winning one more series than MC has to only win two games to reach the finals (against Marineking and STC) MC by going 3-2 has to win 6 series to reach the finals (Marineking, STC, IdrA, Puma, Ret, Rain) Explain to me why he should be punished more when they meet just because Huk won their previous encounter when he already had to go through a lot more players. The player is already exhausted and in a bad mental state because of a huge disadvantage, hence why there hasn't been any exciting MLG finals, and why nobody from the losers bracket has ever won a championship. A straight up bo5 or bo7 finals seems a lot more fair and exciting to me. Poll: My logic?Good (15) 83% Bad (3) 17% No comment (0) 0% 18 total votes Your vote: My logic? (Vote): Good
(Vote): Bad
(Vote): No comment
your logic is awful
it started 2-1 because their series from pool play ended 2-1
3 of the 7 bo7 maps had been played
say huk had a great build which perfectly counted MC on 1 of those pool play maps and used it
then they meet later and if you dont use double elim rule MC could pick the same map (as in theory the first game never happend) and blind counter huks great inital build..
seems really crap if you ask me.
yes the route is longer but sometimes its better, these players can play 40+ games a DAY in solid 12 hour stints, i think a couple of games before a rematch to warm up would be good, ive seen (in halo etc) the team in the final loose because they have had to sit around waiting for the other finalist for a few hours and the first few games they are just warming up..
|
On October 17 2011 10:11 Falling wrote:
I would move beyond the whether it's fair or not. It's just bad tv/ internet streaming? It's simply anti-climatic to have a best of 3 at the very end rather than a best of 7.
Sure we got 2 short games and it was done and maybe all we would've gotten is 4 short games. However, when you get to the end and you have at least 4 games to make it or break it, there's more potential mind games more decision making for which builds to choose to close out the match. Rather than a one, two punch and we're done.
It just contains a greater potential for more storylines and comebacks when there are more games at the end. (Down 3-0 and win 4 games straight. Can't happen in a best of 3.)
On the same topic of this, how dumb is it that basically "half" of the Finals took place TWO days before the actual finals? If someone not knowing this crazy rule watches the VOD they'll see Huk winning 2 games and that was the finals... oh what's that? I have go back all the way to Friday pool play to see the first couple of games of the Finals, am I taking crazy pills?
|
On October 17 2011 10:10 La1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:04 MrDudeMan wrote:On October 17 2011 09:59 La1 wrote:
people that dont get it are dumb, its a fair rule
if you have 7 maps to play and say in round 1 you play some guy and you both play each other on 2 of those maps and you win 2-0
then you meet him in the final which is a bo7 you have already played 2 of the 7 maps
so you start 2-0 up with 5 maps to play..
not dumb at all to me..
I guess you could justify it as "fair" depending on your standards, but it is a harsh rule. You are already punished for losing to the player earlier, there isn't a need for a further punishment. I think what MLG should do is change the championship bracket into a single elimination bracket. Then just split it up so the top 4 seeds are automatically awarded at least 8th place. Take out the extended series rule, and make the semi finals bo5 and the grand finals bo7. double elim is great because it gives top players a chance to place correctly, the way mlg does the format is awful but in other games 2x elim means if 2 top means meet round one then the one the looses can still make it to the final.. i see people say its so harsh on the looser, then don't loose.. whats more harsh? single elim? getting knocked out straight away? you have the CHANCE to come back.. thats better than nothing..
People make this mistake a lot.
The current MLG format is not standard double elimination. Extended series is different from standard double elimination.
Most people here who are against extended series would be for standard double elimination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/s7rAe.png)
