|
On November 08 2010 06:53 McDonalds wrote:
Any solution other than the extended series is arbitrary, really. If you don't like it then you should be protesting the existence of the losers bracket in the first place.
Actually, I'm pretty confident almost everyone would have been fine with the winner of the loser's bracket having to win 2 bo3 vs winner of winner's bracket. Normal bo3's for everyone else. This is still double elimination with loser's bracket but has the advantage of not being terrible.
|
Any solution other than the extended series is arbitrary, really. If you don't like it then you should be protesting the existence of the losers bracket in the first place.
How is extended series not arbitrary, but simply playing Bo3s until you lose two is? That's how double elimination works.
|
On November 08 2010 06:56 some_pro wrote:
Imagine a double elimination without extended series tournament
Winners bracket, player A wins player B 3-0
Grand final, A and B meet again, and B wins 3-2
Should B be the winner, even tho he has a 3-5 record against A ?
What on earth are you talking about?
Read the thread and read your own post and figure it out.
|
On November 08 2010 06:34 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:31 Merlinius wrote:On November 08 2010 06:10 Zaq343 wrote:
It seems pretty clear that it's something that's not popular here at least. What I think it's designed to avoid is a situation where a player is eliminated by a player they have a winning record against. For example, 2-0 the first time, followed by a 1-2 LB series results in 3-2 but elimination. That'd be pretty lame. exactly. and that's why i like the rule. a player should not be elminated by someone he has defeated more often than not during the entire tournament. As I explain over here (I know I keep linking that, but it's just because I don't want to rehash the same junk in this thread), MLG is not consistent on this. When the grand final is not a rematch, it's possible for the LB player to go 3-2 against the WB player but still lose the tournament.
So you point out a flaw in the rules in a different situation, but what has that to do with the fact that the rule serves its purpose otherwise?
Btw. let's not forget that MLG is not only about first place. The payout structure rewards more places, and that's why the system is not only supposed to maximize the probability of having the single best player winning the event (which might be done by a single elimination BO lots of games) but also helping 2nd and 3rd best players reaching the top ranks. The double elimination system is a compromise between all that while trying to make sure you're not eliminated by someone you defeated more often than not.
|
On November 08 2010 06:56 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:53 McDonalds wrote:
Any solution other than the extended series is arbitrary, really. If you don't like it then you should be protesting the existence of the losers bracket in the first place. Actually, I'm pretty confident almost everyone would have been fine with the winner of the loser's bracket having to win 2 bo3 vs winner of winner's bracket. Normal bo3's for everyone else. This is still double elimination with loser's bracket but has the advantage of not being terrible.
2-0
1-2
1-2
FInal result: 4-4?
|
On November 08 2010 06:56 some_pro wrote:
Imagine a double elimination without extended series tournament
Winners bracket, player A wins player B 3-0
Grand final, A and B meet again, and B wins 3-2
Should B be the winner, even tho he has a 3-5 record against A ?
Clearly you don't understand how double elimination grand finals normally work. But yes, I believe that the person that wins the most boXs should win the tournament, irrespective of the scores in those boXs.
|
On November 08 2010 06:58 Merlinius wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:34 Pyrthas wrote:On November 08 2010 06:31 Merlinius wrote:On November 08 2010 06:10 Zaq343 wrote:
It seems pretty clear that it's something that's not popular here at least. What I think it's designed to avoid is a situation where a player is eliminated by a player they have a winning record against. For example, 2-0 the first time, followed by a 1-2 LB series results in 3-2 but elimination. That'd be pretty lame. exactly. and that's why i like the rule. a player should not be elminated by someone he has defeated more often than not during the entire tournament. As I explain over here (I know I keep linking that, but it's just because I don't want to rehash the same junk in this thread), MLG is not consistent on this. When the grand final is not a rematch, it's possible for the LB player to go 3-2 against the WB player but still lose the tournament. So you point out a flaw in the rules in a different situation, but what has that to do with the fact that the rule serves its purpose otherwise?
Well, I posted about the grand final because we already had a thread about extended series three weeks ago. I didn't think we needed another thread to cover that ground. Clearly, this thread demonstrates that I was wrong.
Edit: Shit, double post, sorry. I was expecting the thread to keep moving fast, or I would've put this in the last pot. My bad.
|
On November 08 2010 06:56 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:50 SonuvBob wrote:On November 08 2010 06:40 Nouar wrote:
Here's another one :
2bo3 : TT1 has to win 4 games to win the tournament (can be 4-2 ie 2-1/2-1)
extended : TT1 has to win 3 games to win the tournament if he lost 2-1 in WB (can be 3-1)
So in THIS instance, it actually helps the guy coming from the LB.
How fair is that for the guy winning all from WB ? Yeah, if it's just one bo7 the WB advantage is negated by the extended series rule. Seems to be poorly thought out. Yeah, Nouar is right about how it works. I posted the best justification I've heard for MLG's policy on page 2, though, and I don't think it's entirely garbage.
I edited my post with a suggestion for a better Grand Final rematch format:
On November 08 2010 06:50 SonuvBob wrote:
A common alternative to the double bo3 series is a bo5 with a 1-0 advatange for the WB winner. So if they want to keep the extended series thing without having too many games, maybe they could add 1-0 for the WB winner and make it a bo9. So it'd start 3-1 or 3-0, with 2-6 more games played (same # of games as with the standard 2 bo3s)
Thoughts?
(didn't want to bump an old thread, and people will discuss it here anyway since it's relevant right now :p)
|
On November 08 2010 06:56 some_pro wrote:
Imagine a double elimination without extended series tournament
Winners bracket, player A wins player B 3-0
Grand final, A and B meet again, and B wins 3-2
Should B be the winner, even tho he has a 3-5 record against A ?
Simple solution : B has a one BO5 lead going in the GF.
Why ? If he loses 1 BO5, he's virtually going in LB and going back again in the Grand Final having lost one series. Then they play the second one. If he wins the first, he wins, cause B came from Loser Bracket.
@ SonuvBob, yeah, that's good too.
I've been running tournaments for years, and I can't find a thing going for this extended series seriously... be it in LB (you might win 3-2 against THAT player, but lost another series before that, while he might be 2-3 against you, but never lost to anyone else, and is out of the tournament...), or in GF...
@ the 2-0 1-2 1-2 = 4-4 yeah well, it's not 100% about the maps, but about the *series*. Important games are important.
|
On November 08 2010 06:59 McDonalds wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:56 Slow Motion wrote:On November 08 2010 06:53 McDonalds wrote:
Any solution other than the extended series is arbitrary, really. If you don't like it then you should be protesting the existence of the losers bracket in the first place. Actually, I'm pretty confident almost everyone would have been fine with the winner of the loser's bracket having to win 2 bo3 vs winner of winner's bracket. Normal bo3's for everyone else. This is still double elimination with loser's bracket but has the advantage of not being terrible. 2-0 1-2 1-2 FInal result: 4-4?
What's wrong with that? What does the players' record vs each other have to do with a new series? It's not like the loser got a free ride here. They have to fight back from a significant disadvantage.
|
Imagine in the world cup that two sides that played in the group stage end up in the final.
Since one team won the group stage game 2-0 we should start the world cup final with a 2-0 advantage to one team right?
To me it makes sense to have the short Bo3 double elimination tournament to try to find the best 2 players in the tournament without an unreasonable amount of games. No extended series at all.
Then when you get to the GrandFinal just play it out regardless of what happened before.
|
It can get so anticlimatic with this system, when the casters hype up the Grand Finals and two great players face off, only to end up with one player winning the two first maps and that's that.
A Grand Finals should be Grand, with either a bo5 or a bo7, especially when there's as many players as there is at MLG (and it's even 128 players in Dallas).
Last MLG was a bit of an disappointment (atleast for me) where Day9 and Wheat hyped it up alot, especially with that SeleCT had to go through almost all of losers bracket. Only to be over in less than half an hour. :/
|
On November 08 2010 07:03 SonuvBob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:56 Pyrthas wrote:On November 08 2010 06:50 SonuvBob wrote:On November 08 2010 06:40 Nouar wrote:
Here's another one :
2bo3 : TT1 has to win 4 games to win the tournament (can be 4-2 ie 2-1/2-1)
extended : TT1 has to win 3 games to win the tournament if he lost 2-1 in WB (can be 3-1)
So in THIS instance, it actually helps the guy coming from the LB.
How fair is that for the guy winning all from WB ? Yeah, if it's just one bo7 the WB advantage is negated by the extended series rule. Seems to be poorly thought out. Yeah, Nouar is right about how it works. I posted the best justification I've heard for MLG's policy on page 2, though, and I don't think it's entirely garbage. I edited my post with a suggestion for a better Grand Final rematch format: Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:50 SonuvBob wrote:
A common alternative to the double bo3 series is a bo5 with a 1-0 advatange for the WB winner. So if they want to keep the extended series thing without having too many games, maybe they could add 1-0 for the WB winner and make it a bo9. So it'd start 3-1 or 3-0, with 2-6 more games played (same # of games as with the standard 2 bo3s) Thoughts? (didn't want to bump an old thread, and people will discuss it here anyway since it's relevant right now :p)
Yeah, same reason I'm not bumping the threads. I'm just linking them in the hope that someone will read them and benefit from the discussion. Especially the one from MLG DC. No need to have more threads on the same topic floating around now.
I do think that your suggestion would be a decent compromise. If they did that, and then also said that in a non-rematch grand final, you just play a single bo3 and then have it turn into an extended series if the LB player wins, they'd at least have some consistent rules that are in line with their extended series approach.
But I also think that if they really don't care about double elim except insofar as it helps them get the best players playing each other in the grand final, their current system makes pretty good sense. I think that you deserve an extra advantage for never losing a match, which is why I'd prefer your compromise to the current scheme. But if you think that you deserve the advantage only insofar as it suggests that you're the better player (as MLG might), then the current system is actually preferable to the compromise.
|
I wish the poll separated finals from the rest. The rule makes no sense whatsoever for rounds betwee two people in the loser's bracket. (Yes, without it the eliminated person could have a winning record against the person who eliminated them, but only because they *also* lost to someone else.)
In the final, it makes sense for the winner's bracket person to have an advantage. What sort of head start in what length series is a judgement call, but it's not unreasonable, and you can argue it's better from an entertainment standpoint for spectators. I think the most obvious way to see how stupid it is is that if two people faced each other before, they have exactly the same thing happen if they're now both in the loser's bracket as if one of them is still in the winner's bracket. That's idiotic. Obviously the fact that you lost a series in one case and not the other should hurt you *some*.
|
On November 08 2010 07:05 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:59 McDonalds wrote:On November 08 2010 06:56 Slow Motion wrote:On November 08 2010 06:53 McDonalds wrote:
Any solution other than the extended series is arbitrary, really. If you don't like it then you should be protesting the existence of the losers bracket in the first place. Actually, I'm pretty confident almost everyone would have been fine with the winner of the loser's bracket having to win 2 bo3 vs winner of winner's bracket. Normal bo3's for everyone else. This is still double elimination with loser's bracket but has the advantage of not being terrible. 2-0 1-2 1-2 FInal result: 4-4? What's wrong with that? What does the players' record vs each other have to do with a new series? It's not like the loser got a free ride here. They have to fight back from a significant disadvantage.
Don't you think it's a little bit silly that you're saying previous results between the same two players during the same tournament shouldn't count, but the fact that the loser had to beat a bunch of other guys should? Ideally the two people who meet in the finals are the two best players. Why should the ability to beat a larger number of lesser players give you a win in the finals in the event of a tie? Or are we just feeling sympathetic for the guy from the losers bracket because he may or may not be tired?
I'm not saying these two guys actually are the best players, but they're probably supposed to be.
|
if there's double elimination the guy who hasn't lost a single match has to have some sort of advantage, i think the rule is fine
edit: i dont have any say in the ruleset for mlg, i just work here
|
On November 08 2010 07:20 zyzski wrote:
if there's double elimination the guy who hasn't lost a single match has to have some sort of advantage, i think the rule is fine
Why? Your advantage is before the finals you can afford to lose and still be in it.
|
On November 08 2010 07:20 zyzski wrote:
if there's double elimination the guy who hasn't lost a single match has to have some sort of advantage, i think the rule is fine
In a grand final rematch, the WB player has no greater advantage than he would have in a LB rematch. (Edit: My point is that if you think that the person who hasn't lost a match deserves an advantage, then it seems that the rule isn't fine, because it expressly does not give the WB player an advantage just for being in the WB.)
This is one of the things that some of us have objected to with MLG's format. (Though, again, others have given some justification for it.)
|
On November 08 2010 07:03 SonuvBob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:56 Pyrthas wrote:On November 08 2010 06:50 SonuvBob wrote:On November 08 2010 06:40 Nouar wrote:
Here's another one :
2bo3 : TT1 has to win 4 games to win the tournament (can be 4-2 ie 2-1/2-1)
extended : TT1 has to win 3 games to win the tournament if he lost 2-1 in WB (can be 3-1)
So in THIS instance, it actually helps the guy coming from the LB.
How fair is that for the guy winning all from WB ? Yeah, if it's just one bo7 the WB advantage is negated by the extended series rule. Seems to be poorly thought out. Yeah, Nouar is right about how it works. I posted the best justification I've heard for MLG's policy on page 2, though, and I don't think it's entirely garbage. I edited my post with a suggestion for a better Grand Final rematch format: Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:50 SonuvBob wrote:
A common alternative to the double bo3 series is a bo5 with a 1-0 advatange for the WB winner. So if they want to keep the extended series thing without having too many games, maybe they could add 1-0 for the WB winner and make it a bo9. So it'd start 3-1 or 3-0, with 2-6 more games played (same # of games as with the standard 2 bo3s) Thoughts? (didn't want to bump an old thread, and people will discuss it here anyway since it's relevant right now :p)
The problem with that is it doesn't differentiate between a 2-0 series and a 2-1 series, whereas the current system does.
I would rather see them play a best of 7, and if the earlier series was 2-0 it starts 2-0, but if the series was 2-1 it starts 1-0.
That would make a 2-1 series weighted even more heavily as an advantage for the losing player, but still overall be an advantage for the winning player.
If I'm not mistaken, all 3 MLGs now have had this happen in the final match? It's made for some finals where it's pretty obvious who is going to win.
|
On November 08 2010 07:25 Ketara wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, all 3 MLGs now have had this happen in the final match? It's made for some finals where it's pretty obvious who is going to win.
This doesn't make sense. In the current match, MLG's system makes it a closer match than a normal double-elimination format, because TT1 only needs to win 3 games to win the tournament, while in a normal double-elim bracket, he'd need to win 4 games (two bo3s).
You might not like MLG's system. But it doesn't always make it "pretty obvious" who's going to win, because if anything, it makes the grand final closer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
