|
On October 17 2011 10:59 DystopiaX wrote:
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.
In a sense it can be a positive since if someone is heavily disadvantaged (like in most GSL finals) then they get put out of their misery 2-0 instead of 4-0.
That's about the best compliment i can give to this rule.
|
I'm not sure if it's fair, but it's definitely no fun for the spectators, e.g. the MMA vs MVP finals and the + Show Spoiler + finals.
|
On October 17 2011 10:59 DystopiaX wrote:
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.
It only leads to epic comebacks because the only way one of the players can win is by staging a comeback, since he starts behind. However, the rule is not creating the comebacks or the quality of play.
|
Russian Federation899 Posts
U americans love to make things too complicated sometimes
|
Seems like way to much time is spent in pool play. Which has almost no affect on Sunday other then, having to play less series and the extended series BS if I should arise. Points and extended series really need to be reworked for next season. I also think the whole tournament structure should be reworked.
How about just remove pool play and start some kind of double elimination tournament with people from the open bracket and the top 16 seeded. Much like Providence will be. This would be way more interesting and would feel like every match was important. Instead we have these weird scenarios where players must win 15+ BO3's to get anywhere in the tournament and still earn the same points at someone who goes 0-5 in groups. I think the whole tournament structure needs revamp to help the players and create more drama for the viewers.
|
It's a pretty ridiculous rule that almost always leads to an anti-climactic finals. I guess I can understand having some form of it present in the earlier stages of a tournament, but for the grand finals it is a bit much in my opinion.
A very high percent of the time you are going to get a finals where someone has an extended series advantage over the other person. Straight away there is a 50% chance that the person they beat in the championship bracket finals will be the person they face in the grand finals, combined with the smaller % chance that the other person in LB finals was someone they beat earlier on in the tournament+ Show Spoiler +Huk beat both STC and MC at one point in the tourney
I think that if 2 people meet in the grand finals and one has won a previous series vs their opponent it should be some simple compensation, such as getting to pick the first map in the bo7.
In the earlier stages if MLG really wants to have an extended series rule (I'm not sure why they would when majority of their fans are adamantly against it, as they have shown to be very accommodating in the past) it should simply be a 1-0 advantage at most.
|
The extended series rule definitely helps to identify the best player, and it is completely fair when disregarding psychological effects.
The extended series rule reduces the drama and fun of the games for spectators.
The extended series rule should be removed.
|
On October 17 2011 10:52 Nymbul wrote:
Not a fan. The Orlando final was over within 5 minutes it seemed
That has nothing to do with extended series. If they hadn't met before it would have been a Best of 3 which HuK also would have won 2-0.
===============
I feel that Extended Series in general has a place and should be enforced. Not because it is ideal but because it is less bad then the alternatives. For example at IEM Guangzhou IdrA walked away with the 6500$ while Elfi was stuk with 3200$ after drawing him at 3-3. Why should the order in games matter that much?
At the same time though I have the idea that the amount of people arguing about this (50 pages and going) is not proportional at all compared to the amount of influence it has had. There aren't many series that resulted in a different winner the second time because of the advantage that carried over from the winner's bracket. In fact, the lists ends at this.
Orlando.
* IdrA - Boxer | First: 2-0, Finish 4-3. Boxer would have won 1-2.
Raleigh.
* DongRaeGu - Hero | First 2-0, Finish 4-3. HerO would have won 1-2 or 0-2.
Anaheim.
* ToD - Alicia | First 2-0, Finish 4-2. Alicia would have won 1-2 or 0-2.
Columbus.
* MC - ThorZain | First 2-0, Finish 4-2. ThorZain would have won 1-2 or 0-2.
I have not checked for MLG Dallas this year or earlier because it is not as easy to figure out the results. Still: 50 pages for 4 series? Are you serious?
|
True even without the extended series rule Huk would've probably won.
BUT MC didn't get to show what he had in store and his strategies, and the results make MC seem worse then he actually is. Horrible experience for viewers like myself too
|
Canada11607 Posts
On October 17 2011 11:17 Wroshe wrote:
I have not checked for MLG Dallas this year or earlier because it is not as easy to figure out the results. Still: 50 pages for 4 series? Are you serious?
Well considering this thread is almost a year old, 50 pages isn't that bad...
But what people are reacting to is that the finals are supposed to be the main event. That usually means a longer set. In racing, it's the 50 lap crash to pass at your local race track. At a concert the opening acts are great, but the extended series is like having the headlining band go off the stage after a set of 3 songs. It just isn't enough time devoted to the apex of the event.
|
On October 17 2011 11:29 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 11:17 Wroshe wrote:
I have not checked for MLG Dallas this year or earlier because it is not as easy to figure out the results. Still: 50 pages for 4 series? Are you serious? Well considering this thread is almost a year old, 50 pages isn't that bad... But what people are reacting to is that the finals are supposed to be the main event. That usually means a longer set. In racing, it's the 50 lap crash to pass at your local race track. At a concert the opening acts are great, but the extended series is like having the headlining band go off the stage after a set of 3 songs. It just isn't enough time devoted to the apex of the event.
That's not due to extended series, though. If it was normal double-elimination, it would have been Huk needing to win 1 bo3, MC needing to win 2, because he was coming from the lower bracket.
The effect extended series has on that situation is that MC can't hypothetically go 2-1 2-1 in the two bo3s he needs to win, because 2 wins for Huk ends it - it forces him to go 2-0 2-1 or better.
|
On October 17 2011 11:17 Wroshe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:52 Nymbul wrote:
Not a fan. The Orlando final was over within 5 minutes it seemed That has nothing to do with extended series. If they hadn't met before it would have been a Best of 3 which HuK also would have won 2-0. =============== I feel that Extended Series in general has a place and should be enforced. Not because it is ideal but because it is less bad then the alternatives. For example at IEM Guangzhou IdrA walked away with the 6500$ while Elfi was stuk with 3200$ after drawing him at 3-3. Why should the order in games matter that much?
If you scroll back a couple of pages, there are already arguments for why that can be reasonable. (TLDR: because the mistake you made is you forgot to factor in other parts of the tournaments: the point of a tournament is to determine who is the best overall in the tournament, not who is better between the two players head to head)
At the same time though I have the idea that the amount of people arguing about this (50 pages and going) is not proportional at all compared to the amount of influence it has had. There aren't many series that resulted in a different winner the second time because of the advantage that carried over from the winner's bracket. In fact, the lists ends at this.
Orlando.
* IdrA - Boxer | First: 2-0, Finish 4-3. Boxer would have won 1-2.
Raleigh.
* DongRaeGu - Hero | First 2-0, Finish 4-3. HerO would have won 1-2 or 0-2.
Anaheim.
* ToD - Alicia | First 2-0, Finish 4-2. Alicia would have won 1-2 or 0-2.
Columbus.
* MC - ThorZain | First 2-0, Finish 4-2. ThorZain would have won 1-2 or 0-2.
I have not checked for MLG Dallas this year or earlier because it is not as easy to figure out the results. Still: 50 pages for 4 series? Are you serious?
You forgot to consider the games where the person with the extended series lead winning as well. Being up 2-0 allows for a lot of psychological advantage as well as allowing player to play differently (such as taking more risks). So just because the extended series winner ended up getting another 2-0 in the end, it doesn't mean that extended series didn't play a part in it. Just like being up 2-0 in Hockey or Soccer allows the team to play defensive and more conservative, as well as a huge initial momentum that can affect the flow of the game.
|
On October 17 2011 10:40 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 10:36 TheToast wrote: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.
I agree with you that this is a rare event, it has only happened 2-3 times this season in MLG. And I even agree that if one is doing very well, they probably do deserve a free game. But what about the opponent in one of these free games? What if that opponent in tied for second place in the pool, isn't it a little unfair that they are getting an easy win?
Consider a hypothetical example: In pool A Idra is 4-0, Haypro is 2-2, and Boxer is 2-2. Boxer already lost to Idra and now has to play Drewbie who is 1-3 and really needs the win to secure the #3 spot. Haypro is now playing Idra, to whom the match means nothing for his place in the pool. Sure, maybe Idra deserves the free win, but doesn't that make things a bit unfair for Boxer?
Again, sure it happens so infrequently, but I think it's a good thing when it does. Keeps everyone honest. Although as I said, final match-up should always be bo7.
On October 17 2011 10:47 FiWiFaKi wrote:
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).
If the championship bracket were not setup this way, there wouldn't really be much point to the extended series. The idea is that if you get into a situation where there a game means nothing for your seed in the bracket, there is still a point to the game because you will likely be facing the player again in the bracket.
If MLG changed the rule I wouldn't be super upset, but I think it does make things more competitive and serves to make MLG a little different from every other single elimination tournament.
|
The way I see it is that in series with more games, the better player should win.
So, by making it a best of seven, wouldn't the better player, who we assume beat the challenger, still technically have the advantage to win?
|
Hasn't the winner's side finalist earned a bit of an advantage. I might be wrong but I think they should be allowed 2 losses just like everybody else. Might make a boring final, but it seems more fair to me. IDK :/
|
On October 17 2011 11:35 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 11:29 Falling wrote:On October 17 2011 11:17 Wroshe wrote:
I have not checked for MLG Dallas this year or earlier because it is not as easy to figure out the results. Still: 50 pages for 4 series? Are you serious? Well considering this thread is almost a year old, 50 pages isn't that bad... But what people are reacting to is that the finals are supposed to be the main event. That usually means a longer set. In racing, it's the 50 lap crash to pass at your local race track. At a concert the opening acts are great, but the extended series is like having the headlining band go off the stage after a set of 3 songs. It just isn't enough time devoted to the apex of the event. That's not due to extended series, though. If it was normal double-elimination, it would have been Huk needing to win 1 bo3, MC needing to win 2, because he was coming from the lower bracket. The effect extended series has on that situation is that MC can't hypothetically go 2-1 2-1 in the two bo3s he needs to win, because 2 wins for Huk ends it - it forces him to go 2-0 2-1 or better.
The reason we can't have a Bo5 or Bo7 finals is cause of the extended series rule. It's been said before, over and over and over. Two game finals is specifically because of it. No other tournament in existence has a two game final because they know it's just a waste of time.
I sincerely hope MLG swallows their pride for this rule and removes it for Providence since they are doing a straight up Double Elimination Bracket. Epic Bo5 Semi's followed by an Epic Bo7 with the person from the winner's bracket being up 1-0 would be amazing. Last thing we need is another 2 game Final for $50k...
|
On October 17 2011 11:50 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 11:35 Dfgj wrote:On October 17 2011 11:29 Falling wrote:On October 17 2011 11:17 Wroshe wrote:
I have not checked for MLG Dallas this year or earlier because it is not as easy to figure out the results. Still: 50 pages for 4 series? Are you serious? Well considering this thread is almost a year old, 50 pages isn't that bad... But what people are reacting to is that the finals are supposed to be the main event. That usually means a longer set. In racing, it's the 50 lap crash to pass at your local race track. At a concert the opening acts are great, but the extended series is like having the headlining band go off the stage after a set of 3 songs. It just isn't enough time devoted to the apex of the event. That's not due to extended series, though. If it was normal double-elimination, it would have been Huk needing to win 1 bo3, MC needing to win 2, because he was coming from the lower bracket. The effect extended series has on that situation is that MC can't hypothetically go 2-1 2-1 in the two bo3s he needs to win, because 2 wins for Huk ends it - it forces him to go 2-0 2-1 or better. The reason we can't have a Bo5 or Bo7 finals is cause of the extended series rule. It's been said before, over and over and over. Two game finals is specifically because of it. No other tournament in existence has a two game final because they know it's just a waste of time.
Actually, I don't think they do b05's or b07 finals because that means a potential for 10 or 14 games, which is simply too many. If you're suggesting they get rid of the advantage you get from being on the winner's side of a double elimination, then you're just crazy and there's no point in having this discussion.
edit: For slight clarification: I could care less between single or double elimination as they're both fine. However, you can't play it double elim all the way until the end then just throw out the rules and make it a BoX w/ no advantage from the winner's side.
|
Extended series is "fair" but also "boring" and "anticlimatic". Definitely should be changed. Who doesn't love a Bo7 finals anyway?
|
On October 17 2011 11:55 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 11:50 Hrrrrm wrote:On October 17 2011 11:35 Dfgj wrote:On October 17 2011 11:29 Falling wrote:On October 17 2011 11:17 Wroshe wrote:
I have not checked for MLG Dallas this year or earlier because it is not as easy to figure out the results. Still: 50 pages for 4 series? Are you serious? Well considering this thread is almost a year old, 50 pages isn't that bad... But what people are reacting to is that the finals are supposed to be the main event. That usually means a longer set. In racing, it's the 50 lap crash to pass at your local race track. At a concert the opening acts are great, but the extended series is like having the headlining band go off the stage after a set of 3 songs. It just isn't enough time devoted to the apex of the event. That's not due to extended series, though. If it was normal double-elimination, it would have been Huk needing to win 1 bo3, MC needing to win 2, because he was coming from the lower bracket. The effect extended series has on that situation is that MC can't hypothetically go 2-1 2-1 in the two bo3s he needs to win, because 2 wins for Huk ends it - it forces him to go 2-0 2-1 or better. The reason we can't have a Bo5 or Bo7 finals is cause of the extended series rule. It's been said before, over and over and over. Two game finals is specifically because of it. No other tournament in existence has a two game final because they know it's just a waste of time. Actually, I don't think they do b05's or b07 finals because that means a potential for 10 or 14 games, which is simply too many. If you're suggesting they get rid of the advantage you get from being on the winner's side of a double elimination, then you're just crazy and there's no point in having this discussion.
Double Elimination Grand Finals have been known to give the winner a ONE game advantage in Bo7's and it works out perfectly them going in 1-0. They have to win Three games while the opponent(from the losers) has to win Four. It's a big advantage but, it still makes them work for the win.
|
It's fair but no fun for the spectators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
