|
On October 17 2011 10:38 Phelski wrote:
i dont get why people hate it, I feel they the winner should get an advanted, they beat them earlier so it shouldnt be straight up
Ya and the loser should be made to play on 90% because the winner should get an additional advantage beyond the fact they're supposedly the better player anyway.
Except that's ridiculous, a series should be a fair contest.
|
On October 17 2011 10:36 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:19 FiWiFaKi wrote:On October 17 2011 10:16 Hypertension wrote: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. This would be bad because there would be tons of meaningless games. MLG may be anticlimactic at the end, but at least every game is important That's a silly statement. In pool play having a higher seeding is huge. The first day of the tourney has more meaning than the last, because winning after going 2-3 in groups is pretty much impossible as it is. There needs to be hype around the last day, and that's how you achieve it. Wins mean a lot more in pool play compared to something like IPL, I don't think we require anymore benefits. It's a silly statement in that there wouldn't be "tons" of meaningless games, but there certainly would be some. At Raleigh 2011, Coca was 4-0 when he took on Trimaster who was 1-3. The second highest ranked in the pool was Naniwa at 3-2. Without the extended series rule, that game would have been completely meaningless for Coca. Coca being such an awesome player, likely would have still tried, but how much motivation do you have when the game means nothing to you? This potentially gives Trimaster an unfair advantage as he could get a free pass. However when there is a potential of having to play someone again, it makes every match count for something. This is only one of a few instances when this has happened, but it's important to point out that it has happened. However I agree that it does make the final match rather boring. I would say tournament final should be bo7 always, extended series in all other matchups.
If someone is up 4-0 dominating the group while everyone else is 3-2, then that player deserves a easy no-pressure game. This RARELY happens, and most of the time, as you can see, are there is at least someone that is still 3-1 or 3-2, or the new person from the open bracket coming up can potentially get 5-0 at the end as well, therefore, even if you're 4-0, that last game still matters. Just look at Idra and MKP example in their group.
|
On October 17 2011 10:38 Phelski wrote:
i dont get why people hate it, I feel they the winner should get an advanted, they beat them earlier so it shouldnt be straight up
Their advantage is having to play less games, causing less fatigue, less revealing of the strats, less stress. The advantage is already there without extended series you are just choosing to ignore it.
|
On October 17 2011 10:37 Hypertension wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:35 Fubi wrote:On October 17 2011 10:31 Hypertension wrote:On October 17 2011 10:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:On October 17 2011 10:24 pPingu wrote:
I think that it could be used in the open brackets maybe
but it shouldn't be used because of pool games, because pool games goal is to seed the players, so why give a double disadvantage? This so many times over! The "Championship" bracket is the tournament. It's like qualifying on Formula One that happens the day before. And then during the race when your grid position is 5th and his is 2nd, and then you get some handicap when you try and pass him during the race because he was better than you before. It just does not compute. I really want to know what MLG has to say on it. Again, no one watches the Formula One qualifiers because they don't matter and are therefore boring. The huge advantage you get for winning just one more Bo3 in pool play makes each pool play match actually worth watching. But whether it is interesting or not is irrelevant, as that depends on each individual. What is in question is whether if it is fair or not. And making it more interesting because more is at stake doesn't mean it is more fair. What if the extended series makes you instantly win again when you meet the second time? OR how bout if they meet again, the loser must afk for 10 seconds at the start for each game that he lost? By your argument, this would make it even more at stake, therefore would justify the rule as it would make it more interesting right? That's basically how single elimination works, which most people would argue is more exciting than double elimination.
No, Single elimination can have pool play too. Just look at IPL. I think you're confused about something here dude.
|
On October 17 2011 10:02 DrOmni wrote:
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.
Exactly. People just argue to argue (trolling) nowadays. Trolling is the new way of the internet so we better get used to just ignoring the ridiculous stuff that comes out of peoples keyboards. MLG's business model has been working since the start and they are a huge reason e-Sports is where it's at today. They usually do things right and this rule is no different.
Like I said in my other posts, no other tournament runs a double elimination tournament as huge or as well as MLG. Everyone in the sc community is so used to single elimination, that is the old and worst way of doing tournaments.
|
On October 17 2011 10:38 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:31 Hypertension wrote:On October 17 2011 10:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:On October 17 2011 10:24 pPingu wrote:
I think that it could be used in the open brackets maybe
but it shouldn't be used because of pool games, because pool games goal is to seed the players, so why give a double disadvantage? This so many times over! The "Championship" bracket is the tournament. It's like qualifying on Formula One that happens the day before. And then during the race when your grid position is 5th and his is 2nd, and then you get some handicap when you try and pass him during the race because he was better than you before. It just does not compute. I really want to know what MLG has to say on it. Again, no one watches the Formula One qualifiers because they don't matter and are therefore boring. The huge advantage you get for winning just one more Bo3 in pool play makes each pool play match actually worth watching. Or how about they're worth watching because your favourite player/ team/ race is playing? Honestly, the possibility that some of these games might make a difference in extended play is way too abstract to increase the mental/emotional weight the viewer will put on the game. And that's because, the games are only important to the finals in retrospect. What is important for mental/emotional weight is what is happening in the moment. The original best of 3 placement for the championship brackets. (Based on how much further it puts them ahead, it is a very big deal. It's already a giant advantage being further up the championship as you're fresh and not been grinding out games, plus no matter how you do, you're guaranteed a high spot. Winners already have an advantage.) And at the end all that matters is an epic best of 7 competition. Those past games don't come into a viewers experience except as a bit of history at the beginning. The actual finals tension comes from that particular set of matches. Hype is a very temporary/ in the moment sort of thing.
I guess I am one of those viewers who likes abstract things and hardcore games where if you lose you are totally screwed throughout the whole 3 days. I guess by now I should realize that I am in a very small minority though.
|
On October 17 2011 10:36 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:19 FiWiFaKi wrote:On October 17 2011 10:16 Hypertension wrote: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. This would be bad because there would be tons of meaningless games. MLG may be anticlimactic at the end, but at least every game is important That's a silly statement. In pool play having a higher seeding is huge. The first day of the tourney has more meaning than the last, because winning after going 2-3 in groups is pretty much impossible as it is. There needs to be hype around the last day, and that's how you achieve it. Wins mean a lot more in pool play compared to something like IPL, I don't think we require anymore benefits. It's a silly statement in that there wouldn't be "tons" of meaningless games, but there certainly would be some. At Raleigh 2011, Coca was 4-0 when he took on Trimaster who was 1-3. The second highest ranked in the pool was Naniwa at 3-2. Without the extended series rule, that game would have been completely meaningless for Coca. Coca being such an awesome player, likely would have still tried, but how much motivation do you have when the game means nothing to you? This potentially gives Trimaster an unfair advantage as he could get a free pass. However when there is a potential of having to play someone again, it makes every match count for something. This is only one of a few instances when this has happened, but it's important to point out that it has happened. However I agree that it does make the final match rather boring. I would say tournament final should be bo7 always, extended series in all other matchups.
I just want to address the first part of your post, saying there would be tons of meaningless games. This result of the match is going to matter 100% of the time except POTENTIALLY the final two games of each pool.
Looking at the pools in this MLG, every game in pool A affected seeding. In pool B Sase vs Bomber would have changed nothing. In pool C every game affected seeding, and same goes for group D. So one irrelevant game doesn't seem too bad.
Also a flaw in the seeding that I see, is that in seeding group A and D are combined, and group B and C are combined, so instead of having a mix of players in each branch of the seeding, you will never have a group A player playing a group B player until the later rounds. Which also promotes more extended series (not as there was many this MLG though).
It works like the NHL in a way, where you play the teams that you reside closer too, unsure which system would be better, but not going to discuss that, just throwing it out there ^^
|
When it was a simple double elim bracket, it was a stupid rule.
Now it's pool play to determine seedings into a bracket, it makes NO damn sense.
|
I really think think it makes the finals shitty... It seems like every final is Extended series and lame.
|
In general I dislike other parts of the format. For example the pools have 6 players in each group and only 1 advance? what? The advantage is so good for players who win their groups because of the amount of games needed to play is significantly less.
|
Canada11561 Posts
On October 17 2011 10:43 TheOne85 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:02 DrOmni wrote:
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.
Exactly. People just argue to argue (trolling) nowadays. Trolling is the new way of the internet so we better get used to just ignoring the ridiculous stuff that comes out of peoples keyboards. MLG's business model has been working since the start and they are a huge reason e-Sports is where it's at today. They usually do things right and this rule is no different.
No sorry, there was a latent BW foreigner community, bubbling under the surface desperately looking over the fence at the Korean esports scene. SC2 happened and things exploded. MLG tapped into that energy (and have done a good job), but they have had all sorts of bad ideas and hickups along the way. This extended rule is a hold-over from their own tournaments and has no business in the Starcraft scene.
|
Yes it always makes the finals and later games in the tournament a bummer.
|
On October 17 2011 10:42 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:37 Hypertension wrote:On October 17 2011 10:35 Fubi wrote:On October 17 2011 10:31 Hypertension wrote:On October 17 2011 10:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:On October 17 2011 10:24 pPingu wrote:
I think that it could be used in the open brackets maybe
but it shouldn't be used because of pool games, because pool games goal is to seed the players, so why give a double disadvantage? This so many times over! The "Championship" bracket is the tournament. It's like qualifying on Formula One that happens the day before. And then during the race when your grid position is 5th and his is 2nd, and then you get some handicap when you try and pass him during the race because he was better than you before. It just does not compute. I really want to know what MLG has to say on it. Again, no one watches the Formula One qualifiers because they don't matter and are therefore boring. The huge advantage you get for winning just one more Bo3 in pool play makes each pool play match actually worth watching. But whether it is interesting or not is irrelevant, as that depends on each individual. What is in question is whether if it is fair or not. And making it more interesting because more is at stake doesn't mean it is more fair. What if the extended series makes you instantly win again when you meet the second time? OR how bout if they meet again, the loser must afk for 10 seconds at the start for each game that he lost? By your argument, this would make it even more at stake, therefore would justify the rule as it would make it more interesting right? That's basically how single elimination works, which most people would argue is more exciting than double elimination. No, Single elimination can have pool play too. Just look at IPL. I think you're confused about something here dude.
If the pool play is only for seeding, then the pool play games aren't as interesting. Worse there are even times when you are better off losing to get a more favorable matchup. But if you have to worry about facing the same opponent later then every game matters. For example, let's say Hero made it to the finals vs. Huk, Huk would really regret dropping the earlier series.
|
Not a fan. The Orlando final was over within 5 minutes it seemed
|
On October 17 2011 10:31 Hypertension wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:On October 17 2011 10:24 pPingu wrote:
I think that it could be used in the open brackets maybe
but it shouldn't be used because of pool games, because pool games goal is to seed the players, so why give a double disadvantage? This so many times over! The "Championship" bracket is the tournament. It's like qualifying on Formula One that happens the day before. And then during the race when your grid position is 5th and his is 2nd, and then you get some handicap when you try and pass him during the race because he was better than you before. It just does not compute. I really want to know what MLG has to say on it. Again, no one watches the Formula One qualifiers because they don't matter and are therefore boring. The huge advantage you get for winning just one more Bo3 in pool play makes each pool play match actually worth watching.
Well first I'll say a pole position as opposed to starting 10th is pretty huge, I think the advantage is small enough to keep it interesting, but big enough to put pressure on teams to work as if their lives were on the line... If there's any F1 fans out there they'd know what I mean.
But starting a lap ahead wouldn't make a very fun race, would it?
My analogies are maybe horrible, but the point I'm trying to get across is seeding is still very important, and the most weight should be placed on the final day.
|
Canada11561 Posts
On October 17 2011 10:45 Hypertension wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:38 Falling wrote:On October 17 2011 10:31 Hypertension wrote:On October 17 2011 10:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:On October 17 2011 10:24 pPingu wrote:
I think that it could be used in the open brackets maybe
but it shouldn't be used because of pool games, because pool games goal is to seed the players, so why give a double disadvantage? This so many times over! The "Championship" bracket is the tournament. It's like qualifying on Formula One that happens the day before. And then during the race when your grid position is 5th and his is 2nd, and then you get some handicap when you try and pass him during the race because he was better than you before. It just does not compute. I really want to know what MLG has to say on it. Again, no one watches the Formula One qualifiers because they don't matter and are therefore boring. The huge advantage you get for winning just one more Bo3 in pool play makes each pool play match actually worth watching. Or how about they're worth watching because your favourite player/ team/ race is playing? Honestly, the possibility that some of these games might make a difference in extended play is way too abstract to increase the mental/emotional weight the viewer will put on the game. And that's because, the games are only important to the finals in retrospect. What is important for mental/emotional weight is what is happening in the moment. The original best of 3 placement for the championship brackets. (Based on how much further it puts them ahead, it is a very big deal. It's already a giant advantage being further up the championship as you're fresh and not been grinding out games, plus no matter how you do, you're guaranteed a high spot. Winners already have an advantage.) And at the end all that matters is an epic best of 7 competition. Those past games don't come into a viewers experience except as a bit of history at the beginning. The actual finals tension comes from that particular set of matches. Hype is a very temporary/ in the moment sort of thing. I guess I am one of those viewers who likes abstract things and hardcore games where if you lose you are totally screwed throughout the whole 3 days. I guess by now I should realize that I am in a very small minority though.
Probably. And I think there's a reason for the opinion being in a minority. Most tournaments have ways of favouring past winners or dominating players/ teams, whether by seeds or by having #1 play #8, ice hockey does this. But there's one thing they don't do and that's have a cumulative score from all your previous games.
Each game is it's own and you certainly don't combine wins from the main season to the actual best of 7 match. Main season wins get you your place (#1 plays #8 with home ice advantage or with MLG, both getting seeded into pool play and then getting seeded way later in the tournament if you do well), but you don't start the play-offs at win deficit no matter how many games you won or lost against the other team to get there. Way too abstract, way too anti-climatic. In that case, three-quarters of the battle has already been won.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
It is just a stupid shitty rule. It is a) unfair and b) creates horrendously boring best-of series'.
Winner already had a giant advantage for his win in the earlier rounds and if the other player fights his way through a lower bracket he deserves equal odds again. Nothing else to say about it. It sucks. Get rid of it.
|
On October 17 2011 10:45 Hypertension wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:38 Falling wrote:On October 17 2011 10:31 Hypertension wrote:On October 17 2011 10:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:On October 17 2011 10:24 pPingu wrote:
I think that it could be used in the open brackets maybe
but it shouldn't be used because of pool games, because pool games goal is to seed the players, so why give a double disadvantage? This so many times over! The "Championship" bracket is the tournament. It's like qualifying on Formula One that happens the day before. And then during the race when your grid position is 5th and his is 2nd, and then you get some handicap when you try and pass him during the race because he was better than you before. It just does not compute. I really want to know what MLG has to say on it. Again, no one watches the Formula One qualifiers because they don't matter and are therefore boring. The huge advantage you get for winning just one more Bo3 in pool play makes each pool play match actually worth watching. Or how about they're worth watching because your favourite player/ team/ race is playing? Honestly, the possibility that some of these games might make a difference in extended play is way too abstract to increase the mental/emotional weight the viewer will put on the game. And that's because, the games are only important to the finals in retrospect. What is important for mental/emotional weight is what is happening in the moment. The original best of 3 placement for the championship brackets. (Based on how much further it puts them ahead, it is a very big deal. It's already a giant advantage being further up the championship as you're fresh and not been grinding out games, plus no matter how you do, you're guaranteed a high spot. Winners already have an advantage.) And at the end all that matters is an epic best of 7 competition. Those past games don't come into a viewers experience except as a bit of history at the beginning. The actual finals tension comes from that particular set of matches. Hype is a very temporary/ in the moment sort of thing. I guess I am one of those viewers who likes abstract things and hardcore games where if you lose you are totally screwed throughout the whole 3 days. I guess by now I should realize that I am in a very small minority though.
While watching pool play and you see your favorite player lose, you don't think "fdsgergdfgreg"... It's just normal for a person to think: "well he will have to win a bit more next day". It's not until the last day when you realize that the 3-2 situation that your favorite player got into is a near impossible task to get through. And therefore I do think the initial days should be treated more lightly, and more of a time for the open bracket to complete, and that's where the wins and losses mean everything.
The seeding is pretty harsh as it is anyways in my honest opinion, it's not like I'm suggesting to make pool play purely for the fans and mean nothing.
|
from a pure spectator perspective i think it swings both ways. It can lead to epic comebacks, but it can also lead to short, boring, anticlimactic series.
|
On October 17 2011 10:51 Hypertension wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:42 Fubi wrote:On October 17 2011 10:37 Hypertension wrote:On October 17 2011 10:35 Fubi wrote:On October 17 2011 10:31 Hypertension wrote:On October 17 2011 10:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:On October 17 2011 10:24 pPingu wrote:
I think that it could be used in the open brackets maybe
but it shouldn't be used because of pool games, because pool games goal is to seed the players, so why give a double disadvantage? This so many times over! The "Championship" bracket is the tournament. It's like qualifying on Formula One that happens the day before. And then during the race when your grid position is 5th and his is 2nd, and then you get some handicap when you try and pass him during the race because he was better than you before. It just does not compute. I really want to know what MLG has to say on it. Again, no one watches the Formula One qualifiers because they don't matter and are therefore boring. The huge advantage you get for winning just one more Bo3 in pool play makes each pool play match actually worth watching. But whether it is interesting or not is irrelevant, as that depends on each individual. What is in question is whether if it is fair or not. And making it more interesting because more is at stake doesn't mean it is more fair. What if the extended series makes you instantly win again when you meet the second time? OR how bout if they meet again, the loser must afk for 10 seconds at the start for each game that he lost? By your argument, this would make it even more at stake, therefore would justify the rule as it would make it more interesting right? That's basically how single elimination works, which most people would argue is more exciting than double elimination. No, Single elimination can have pool play too. Just look at IPL. I think you're confused about something here dude. If the pool play is only for seeding, then the pool play games aren't as interesting. Worse there are even times when you are better off losing to get a more favorable matchup. But if you have to worry about facing the same opponent later then every game matters. For example, let's say Hero made it to the finals vs. Huk, Huk would really regret dropping the earlier series.
It is interesting if it gives as big of an advantage as having to play 4 less opponents to reach the finals. There is no need for even more advantage. What I'm trying to say is, the games will be exciting enough to watch if ENOUGH is at stake, there doesn't need to be so much at stake that it tilts the fairness of the game; which is what MLG is doing: adding extended series to that doesn't make the pool play more exciting to watch as there is already enough at stake due to how the Championship Bracket seeding works out, it simply just adds a layer of unfairness when we get to the brackets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
