|
On October 17 2011 18:07 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 17:37 zul wrote:
First of all, the rule aplies for everyone. Second, Imagine a scenario between player A and player B. Player A wins 2:0 over player B in earlier stages of the playoffs and advances undefeated to the grand finals. Player B goes down to the lower/losers Bracket and wins the rest of his matches to reach the grand finals as well. Now player B wins 2:0 and therefore the tournament. How would this be fair, if both players have lost the same amout of games and are tied in games (in direct comparison). No they aren't tied. Player B won 2 games in the finals. Player A won 0 games in the finals. Player B won the finals. Player B won the tournament. This is how EVERY tournament works (that has pool play). Are you saying ALL other tournaments are "unfair"? MLG tells you that you should look at results of previous series to determine fairness. If you're looking at results of series that are already over in pool play, why not look at results between A and B in past MLGs as well? I mean they can just decide to count ANYTHING out of the blue and calculate the result like that, and make a case for how it's "fair" because some numbers add up somehow. It's a completely arbitrary, made up out of nowhere rule because somebody thought it's a "cool idea" or something.
Player B would have not won the tournament if he won 2:0 in the finals, he would then have to win 2:1/0 AGAIN to win the finals. Can people STOP making points without understanding double elim. This is how EVERY other tournament does double elim. The extended series is ONLY a big issue when it is between two Lower bracket people. It is not a big issue when it's WB finals vs LB final.
|
On October 17 2011 17:53 Alvar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 17:37 zul wrote:On October 17 2011 10:54 Fenrax wrote:
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. you are soo wrong. I don`t know if you watched the series of IdrA vs Boxer, but Boxers Comeback from a 0:3 (to tie it up to 3:3) was nothing short but epic. AND the rule is fair. I don`t know why people hate on this - it makes MLG special. In case you don`t see why it is fair, I will explain it. First of all, the rule aplies for everyone. Second, Imagine a scenario between player A and player B. Player A wins 2:0 over player B in earlier stages of the playoffs and advances undefeated to the grand finals. Player B goes down to the lower/losers Bracket and wins the rest of his matches to reach the grand finals as well. Now player B wins 2:0 and therefore the tournament. How would this be fair, if both players have lost the same amout of games and are tied in games (in direct comparison). Extended series make sure, the winner of the first match has the advantage he deserves, when the opponents meet in the later stages. It does NOT produce boring matches - it is the other way around. It gives more importance to all the matches (including early ones), because you never know if you will meet each other in later stages of the tournament and therefore you better make sure to lead the extended series. In this scenario both players would not have won the same amount of games. In MLG player B would have played a shitload of more games to even get to the finals. Besides, people are not saying it should then be a BO3 finals, it should be a BO7 or something like that with WB having a 1-0 advantage.
A 1:0 lead would be ok for me, since it still gives the advantage to the player, that won the first match and it closes the gap at the same time.
|
On October 17 2011 17:51 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 16:33 Sirvantes7 wrote:On October 17 2011 13:57 TheToast wrote:On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:
MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1
If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won. That's not how it works, in your example HuK would have won. Essentially the extended series adds a maximum of 4 extra games onto the previous bo3. In your example, if HuK beats MC 2-0 then in the final HuK only needs to pick up 2 games to win. MC has to pick up 4. It really does make things fair as every game counts for something. But many people are saying it takes away some of the excitement from the finals, and I do believe they have a point. I really like the extended series rule, but tournament final match-up should just be a bo7 straight up IMO. Well, in "normal" double elimination tournaments, the loser bracket's winner has to defeat the winner's bracket winner in 2 best of whatever the final match is. (In MGL's case 2 Bo3s). That is the fairest possible way to do this without screwing the lowers with "extended series, and it makes sure that it is true to the double elimination scheme. I have no clue why on earth people think that the extended series is more fair than this. Yea I don't get why people complain about "extended series" in the finals. It actually helps the guy coming from lower bracket since in a normal Double elim he would have to win 2xBo3 but since he lost 1-2 he only has to win 3 games where as winner still has to win 2. Thus it gives the advantage to the guy that lost 1-2 relative to a normal double elim. Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 17:48 Talin wrote:On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:
MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1
If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won. The part where you say "if that was a BO5 HuK would have won" is the part that doesn't make sense about this argument. Because it isn't a BO5. It's a BO3. Why would you look at a previous series which is already over? You're referring to past results and counting them twice. What happens in REALITY is that HuK won 1 series in pool play, and MC won 1 series in the finals. And it makes sense that winning in the finals will be more important... because it's the fucking finals. The tournament is double elim. Even without extended series Huk would not have lost if he lost 2-1 in the first Bo3 there would have been a second Bo3. Do people just not understand how Double elim works?
I do understand how double elim works. It works horribly.
Extended series isn't the only double elimination "tie breaker" that sucks, they all do. The original idea of double elimination has some merit - give players a second chance and all that. But unless you're going to give them an equal chance (which nobody does for some weird reason), just have single elimination BO5 instead.
All serious Starcraft tournaments before SC2 were single elimination anyway, and it didn't kill e-sports or anything.
|
On October 17 2011 18:09 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 18:07 Talin wrote:On October 17 2011 17:37 zul wrote:
First of all, the rule aplies for everyone. Second, Imagine a scenario between player A and player B. Player A wins 2:0 over player B in earlier stages of the playoffs and advances undefeated to the grand finals. Player B goes down to the lower/losers Bracket and wins the rest of his matches to reach the grand finals as well. Now player B wins 2:0 and therefore the tournament. How would this be fair, if both players have lost the same amout of games and are tied in games (in direct comparison). No they aren't tied. Player B won 2 games in the finals. Player A won 0 games in the finals. Player B won the finals. Player B won the tournament. This is how EVERY tournament works (that has pool play). Are you saying ALL other tournaments are "unfair"? MLG tells you that you should look at results of previous series to determine fairness. If you're looking at results of series that are already over in pool play, why not look at results between A and B in past MLGs as well? I mean they can just decide to count ANYTHING out of the blue and calculate the result like that, and make a case for how it's "fair" because some numbers add up somehow. It's a completely arbitrary, made up out of nowhere rule because somebody thought it's a "cool idea" or something. Player B would have not won the tournament if he won 2:0 in the finals, he would then have to win 2:1/0 AGAIN to win the finals. Can people STOP making points without understanding double elim. This is how EVERY other tournament does double elim. The extended series is ONLY a big issue when it is between two Lower bracket people. It is not a big issue when it's WB finals vs LB final.
Numy got it right. It is either some kind of extended series or the player from the lower bracket has to win 2 Best-of-whatever to get the title.
|
On October 17 2011 18:13 zul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 18:09 Numy wrote:On October 17 2011 18:07 Talin wrote:On October 17 2011 17:37 zul wrote:
First of all, the rule aplies for everyone. Second, Imagine a scenario between player A and player B. Player A wins 2:0 over player B in earlier stages of the playoffs and advances undefeated to the grand finals. Player B goes down to the lower/losers Bracket and wins the rest of his matches to reach the grand finals as well. Now player B wins 2:0 and therefore the tournament. How would this be fair, if both players have lost the same amout of games and are tied in games (in direct comparison). No they aren't tied. Player B won 2 games in the finals. Player A won 0 games in the finals. Player B won the finals. Player B won the tournament. This is how EVERY tournament works (that has pool play). Are you saying ALL other tournaments are "unfair"? MLG tells you that you should look at results of previous series to determine fairness. If you're looking at results of series that are already over in pool play, why not look at results between A and B in past MLGs as well? I mean they can just decide to count ANYTHING out of the blue and calculate the result like that, and make a case for how it's "fair" because some numbers add up somehow. It's a completely arbitrary, made up out of nowhere rule because somebody thought it's a "cool idea" or something. Player B would have not won the tournament if he won 2:0 in the finals, he would then have to win 2:1/0 AGAIN to win the finals. Can people STOP making points without understanding double elim. This is how EVERY other tournament does double elim. The extended series is ONLY a big issue when it is between two Lower bracket people. It is not a big issue when it's WB finals vs LB final. Numy got it right. It is either some kind of extended series or the player from the lower bracket has to win 2 Best-of-whatever to get the title.
That's a horrible rule as well, but then you at least make sure that it's only ONE match (the finals) in which has results are warped by a horrible rule, instead of multiple matches throughout the tournament.
And the LB finalist at least gets 2nd place, so it's easier to live with that.
In MLG's system, it can happen anywhere in the tournament bracket, which makes it multiple times more painful to watch than normal double elim.
|
On October 17 2011 18:12 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 17:51 Numy wrote:On October 17 2011 16:33 Sirvantes7 wrote:On October 17 2011 13:57 TheToast wrote:On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:
MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1
If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won. That's not how it works, in your example HuK would have won. Essentially the extended series adds a maximum of 4 extra games onto the previous bo3. In your example, if HuK beats MC 2-0 then in the final HuK only needs to pick up 2 games to win. MC has to pick up 4. It really does make things fair as every game counts for something. But many people are saying it takes away some of the excitement from the finals, and I do believe they have a point. I really like the extended series rule, but tournament final match-up should just be a bo7 straight up IMO. Well, in "normal" double elimination tournaments, the loser bracket's winner has to defeat the winner's bracket winner in 2 best of whatever the final match is. (In MGL's case 2 Bo3s). That is the fairest possible way to do this without screwing the lowers with "extended series, and it makes sure that it is true to the double elimination scheme. I have no clue why on earth people think that the extended series is more fair than this. Yea I don't get why people complain about "extended series" in the finals. It actually helps the guy coming from lower bracket since in a normal Double elim he would have to win 2xBo3 but since he lost 1-2 he only has to win 3 games where as winner still has to win 2. Thus it gives the advantage to the guy that lost 1-2 relative to a normal double elim. On October 17 2011 17:48 Talin wrote:On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:
MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1
If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won. The part where you say "if that was a BO5 HuK would have won" is the part that doesn't make sense about this argument. Because it isn't a BO5. It's a BO3. Why would you look at a previous series which is already over? You're referring to past results and counting them twice. What happens in REALITY is that HuK won 1 series in pool play, and MC won 1 series in the finals. And it makes sense that winning in the finals will be more important... because it's the fucking finals. The tournament is double elim. Even without extended series Huk would not have lost if he lost 2-1 in the first Bo3 there would have been a second Bo3. Do people just not understand how Double elim works? I do understand how double elim works. It works horribly. Extended series isn't the only double elimination "tie breaker" that sucks, they all do. The original idea of double elimination has some merit - give players a second chance and all that. But unless you're going to give them an equal chance (which nobody does for some weird reason), just have single elimination BO5 instead. All serious Starcraft tournaments before SC2 were single elimination anyway, and it didn't kill e-sports or anything.
I don't understand what you are saying. Everyone gets an equal chance in a double elim bracket. You lose 2 series you are out of the tournament. How is that not giving everyone an equal chance? The only downside of a normal double elim is the finals are only really epic when the LB player wins the first bo3.
Single elim works great for smaller player base. A big open tournament it's extremely unfair and luck based to make it single elim
|
On October 17 2011 18:12 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 17:51 Numy wrote:On October 17 2011 16:33 Sirvantes7 wrote:On October 17 2011 13:57 TheToast wrote:On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:
MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1
If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won. That's not how it works, in your example HuK would have won. Essentially the extended series adds a maximum of 4 extra games onto the previous bo3. In your example, if HuK beats MC 2-0 then in the final HuK only needs to pick up 2 games to win. MC has to pick up 4. It really does make things fair as every game counts for something. But many people are saying it takes away some of the excitement from the finals, and I do believe they have a point. I really like the extended series rule, but tournament final match-up should just be a bo7 straight up IMO. Well, in "normal" double elimination tournaments, the loser bracket's winner has to defeat the winner's bracket winner in 2 best of whatever the final match is. (In MGL's case 2 Bo3s). That is the fairest possible way to do this without screwing the lowers with "extended series, and it makes sure that it is true to the double elimination scheme. I have no clue why on earth people think that the extended series is more fair than this. Yea I don't get why people complain about "extended series" in the finals. It actually helps the guy coming from lower bracket since in a normal Double elim he would have to win 2xBo3 but since he lost 1-2 he only has to win 3 games where as winner still has to win 2. Thus it gives the advantage to the guy that lost 1-2 relative to a normal double elim. On October 17 2011 17:48 Talin wrote:On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:
MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1
If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won. The part where you say "if that was a BO5 HuK would have won" is the part that doesn't make sense about this argument. Because it isn't a BO5. It's a BO3. Why would you look at a previous series which is already over? You're referring to past results and counting them twice. What happens in REALITY is that HuK won 1 series in pool play, and MC won 1 series in the finals. And it makes sense that winning in the finals will be more important... because it's the fucking finals. The tournament is double elim. Even without extended series Huk would not have lost if he lost 2-1 in the first Bo3 there would have been a second Bo3. Do people just not understand how Double elim works? I do understand how double elim works. It works horribly. ...
But if you don`t like double Elim, there is no point in discussing this at all. If player B loses to player A in earlier stages and the tournament has a single elimination bracket, player B is out anyways. In Double Elim he still has a chance (even if it is difficult for him).
|
On October 17 2011 18:17 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 18:12 Talin wrote:On October 17 2011 17:51 Numy wrote:On October 17 2011 16:33 Sirvantes7 wrote:On October 17 2011 13:57 TheToast wrote:On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:
MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1
If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won. That's not how it works, in your example HuK would have won. Essentially the extended series adds a maximum of 4 extra games onto the previous bo3. In your example, if HuK beats MC 2-0 then in the final HuK only needs to pick up 2 games to win. MC has to pick up 4. It really does make things fair as every game counts for something. But many people are saying it takes away some of the excitement from the finals, and I do believe they have a point. I really like the extended series rule, but tournament final match-up should just be a bo7 straight up IMO. Well, in "normal" double elimination tournaments, the loser bracket's winner has to defeat the winner's bracket winner in 2 best of whatever the final match is. (In MGL's case 2 Bo3s). That is the fairest possible way to do this without screwing the lowers with "extended series, and it makes sure that it is true to the double elimination scheme. I have no clue why on earth people think that the extended series is more fair than this. Yea I don't get why people complain about "extended series" in the finals. It actually helps the guy coming from lower bracket since in a normal Double elim he would have to win 2xBo3 but since he lost 1-2 he only has to win 3 games where as winner still has to win 2. Thus it gives the advantage to the guy that lost 1-2 relative to a normal double elim. On October 17 2011 17:48 Talin wrote:On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:
MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1
If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won. The part where you say "if that was a BO5 HuK would have won" is the part that doesn't make sense about this argument. Because it isn't a BO5. It's a BO3. Why would you look at a previous series which is already over? You're referring to past results and counting them twice. What happens in REALITY is that HuK won 1 series in pool play, and MC won 1 series in the finals. And it makes sense that winning in the finals will be more important... because it's the fucking finals. The tournament is double elim. Even without extended series Huk would not have lost if he lost 2-1 in the first Bo3 there would have been a second Bo3. Do people just not understand how Double elim works? I do understand how double elim works. It works horribly. Extended series isn't the only double elimination "tie breaker" that sucks, they all do. The original idea of double elimination has some merit - give players a second chance and all that. But unless you're going to give them an equal chance (which nobody does for some weird reason), just have single elimination BO5 instead. All serious Starcraft tournaments before SC2 were single elimination anyway, and it didn't kill e-sports or anything. I don't understand what you are saying. Everyone gets an equal chance in a double elim bracket. You lose 2 series you are out of the tournament. How is that not giving everyone an equal chance?
Equal chance in the "big picture" of the tournament format is not the same as an equal chance in all series.
Any tournament format which offsets the results of series or in which the current series isn't the only series that matters is unfair in my eyes. When you sit down to play your opponent, you should start out even. Only this way can you ensure the players are psychologically in the right place and have a fair series.
A series which starts at 0-2 or 0-3 is not a fair series. It may be a fair in an overall FORMAT, but it's not a fair series, and if it's not a fair series the tournament format is bad anyway.
|
The main issue I got with the extended rule have nothing to do with fairness but rather the fact it creates less exciting series. Also it usually come into play late in the tournament meaning you potentially get less exiting matches when they should matter most.
|
On October 17 2011 18:22 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 18:17 Numy wrote:On October 17 2011 18:12 Talin wrote:On October 17 2011 17:51 Numy wrote:On October 17 2011 16:33 Sirvantes7 wrote:On October 17 2011 13:57 TheToast wrote:On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:
MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1
If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won. That's not how it works, in your example HuK would have won. Essentially the extended series adds a maximum of 4 extra games onto the previous bo3. In your example, if HuK beats MC 2-0 then in the final HuK only needs to pick up 2 games to win. MC has to pick up 4. It really does make things fair as every game counts for something. But many people are saying it takes away some of the excitement from the finals, and I do believe they have a point. I really like the extended series rule, but tournament final match-up should just be a bo7 straight up IMO. Well, in "normal" double elimination tournaments, the loser bracket's winner has to defeat the winner's bracket winner in 2 best of whatever the final match is. (In MGL's case 2 Bo3s). That is the fairest possible way to do this without screwing the lowers with "extended series, and it makes sure that it is true to the double elimination scheme. I have no clue why on earth people think that the extended series is more fair than this. Yea I don't get why people complain about "extended series" in the finals. It actually helps the guy coming from lower bracket since in a normal Double elim he would have to win 2xBo3 but since he lost 1-2 he only has to win 3 games where as winner still has to win 2. Thus it gives the advantage to the guy that lost 1-2 relative to a normal double elim. On October 17 2011 17:48 Talin wrote:On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:
MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1
If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won. The part where you say "if that was a BO5 HuK would have won" is the part that doesn't make sense about this argument. Because it isn't a BO5. It's a BO3. Why would you look at a previous series which is already over? You're referring to past results and counting them twice. What happens in REALITY is that HuK won 1 series in pool play, and MC won 1 series in the finals. And it makes sense that winning in the finals will be more important... because it's the fucking finals. The tournament is double elim. Even without extended series Huk would not have lost if he lost 2-1 in the first Bo3 there would have been a second Bo3. Do people just not understand how Double elim works? I do understand how double elim works. It works horribly. Extended series isn't the only double elimination "tie breaker" that sucks, they all do. The original idea of double elimination has some merit - give players a second chance and all that. But unless you're going to give them an equal chance (which nobody does for some weird reason), just have single elimination BO5 instead. All serious Starcraft tournaments before SC2 were single elimination anyway, and it didn't kill e-sports or anything. I don't understand what you are saying. Everyone gets an equal chance in a double elim bracket. You lose 2 series you are out of the tournament. How is that not giving everyone an equal chance? Equal chance in the "big picture" of the tournament format is not the same as an equal chance in all series. Any tournament format which offsets the results of series or in which the current series isn't the only series that matters is unfair in my eyes. When you sit down to play your opponent, you should start out even. Only this way can you ensure the players are psychologically in the right place and have a fair series. A series which starts at 0-2 or 0-3 is not a fair series. It may be a fair in an overall FORMAT, but it's not a fair series, and if it's not a fair series the tournament format is bad anyway.
No series start at 0-2 or 0-3, that's only extended series rule not double elim. It also seems like you have never experience the pain of a single elim open bracket.
|
On October 17 2011 18:18 zul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 18:12 Talin wrote:On October 17 2011 17:51 Numy wrote:On October 17 2011 16:33 Sirvantes7 wrote:On October 17 2011 13:57 TheToast wrote:On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:
MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1
If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won. That's not how it works, in your example HuK would have won. Essentially the extended series adds a maximum of 4 extra games onto the previous bo3. In your example, if HuK beats MC 2-0 then in the final HuK only needs to pick up 2 games to win. MC has to pick up 4. It really does make things fair as every game counts for something. But many people are saying it takes away some of the excitement from the finals, and I do believe they have a point. I really like the extended series rule, but tournament final match-up should just be a bo7 straight up IMO. Well, in "normal" double elimination tournaments, the loser bracket's winner has to defeat the winner's bracket winner in 2 best of whatever the final match is. (In MGL's case 2 Bo3s). That is the fairest possible way to do this without screwing the lowers with "extended series, and it makes sure that it is true to the double elimination scheme. I have no clue why on earth people think that the extended series is more fair than this. Yea I don't get why people complain about "extended series" in the finals. It actually helps the guy coming from lower bracket since in a normal Double elim he would have to win 2xBo3 but since he lost 1-2 he only has to win 3 games where as winner still has to win 2. Thus it gives the advantage to the guy that lost 1-2 relative to a normal double elim. On October 17 2011 17:48 Talin wrote:On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:
MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1
If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won. The part where you say "if that was a BO5 HuK would have won" is the part that doesn't make sense about this argument. Because it isn't a BO5. It's a BO3. Why would you look at a previous series which is already over? You're referring to past results and counting them twice. What happens in REALITY is that HuK won 1 series in pool play, and MC won 1 series in the finals. And it makes sense that winning in the finals will be more important... because it's the fucking finals. The tournament is double elim. Even without extended series Huk would not have lost if he lost 2-1 in the first Bo3 there would have been a second Bo3. Do people just not understand how Double elim works? I do understand how double elim works. It works horribly. ... But if you don`t like double Elim, there is no point in discussing this at all. If player B loses to player A in earlier stages and the tournament has a single elimination bracket, player B is out anyways. In Double Elim he still has a chance (even if it is difficult for him).
It's true that I don't like it, but given a choice I'll just take the regular double elimination instead.
(because like I said, in regular double elim it's only the finals that are messed up).
Take what you can get I guess. 
On October 17 2011 18:26 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 18:22 Talin wrote:On October 17 2011 18:17 Numy wrote:On October 17 2011 18:12 Talin wrote:On October 17 2011 17:51 Numy wrote:On October 17 2011 16:33 Sirvantes7 wrote:On October 17 2011 13:57 TheToast wrote:On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:
MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1
If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won. That's not how it works, in your example HuK would have won. Essentially the extended series adds a maximum of 4 extra games onto the previous bo3. In your example, if HuK beats MC 2-0 then in the final HuK only needs to pick up 2 games to win. MC has to pick up 4. It really does make things fair as every game counts for something. But many people are saying it takes away some of the excitement from the finals, and I do believe they have a point. I really like the extended series rule, but tournament final match-up should just be a bo7 straight up IMO. Well, in "normal" double elimination tournaments, the loser bracket's winner has to defeat the winner's bracket winner in 2 best of whatever the final match is. (In MGL's case 2 Bo3s). That is the fairest possible way to do this without screwing the lowers with "extended series, and it makes sure that it is true to the double elimination scheme. I have no clue why on earth people think that the extended series is more fair than this. Yea I don't get why people complain about "extended series" in the finals. It actually helps the guy coming from lower bracket since in a normal Double elim he would have to win 2xBo3 but since he lost 1-2 he only has to win 3 games where as winner still has to win 2. Thus it gives the advantage to the guy that lost 1-2 relative to a normal double elim. On October 17 2011 17:48 Talin wrote:On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:
MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1
If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won. The part where you say "if that was a BO5 HuK would have won" is the part that doesn't make sense about this argument. Because it isn't a BO5. It's a BO3. Why would you look at a previous series which is already over? You're referring to past results and counting them twice. What happens in REALITY is that HuK won 1 series in pool play, and MC won 1 series in the finals. And it makes sense that winning in the finals will be more important... because it's the fucking finals. The tournament is double elim. Even without extended series Huk would not have lost if he lost 2-1 in the first Bo3 there would have been a second Bo3. Do people just not understand how Double elim works? I do understand how double elim works. It works horribly. Extended series isn't the only double elimination "tie breaker" that sucks, they all do. The original idea of double elimination has some merit - give players a second chance and all that. But unless you're going to give them an equal chance (which nobody does for some weird reason), just have single elimination BO5 instead. All serious Starcraft tournaments before SC2 were single elimination anyway, and it didn't kill e-sports or anything. I don't understand what you are saying. Everyone gets an equal chance in a double elim bracket. You lose 2 series you are out of the tournament. How is that not giving everyone an equal chance? Equal chance in the "big picture" of the tournament format is not the same as an equal chance in all series. Any tournament format which offsets the results of series or in which the current series isn't the only series that matters is unfair in my eyes. When you sit down to play your opponent, you should start out even. Only this way can you ensure the players are psychologically in the right place and have a fair series. A series which starts at 0-2 or 0-3 is not a fair series. It may be a fair in an overall FORMAT, but it's not a fair series, and if it's not a fair series the tournament format is bad anyway. No series start at 0-2 or 0-3, that's only extended series rule not double elim. It also seems like you have never experience the pain of a single elim open bracket.
You hit an opponent and he has an advantage. No matter how you want to call it, it's like hitting a wall.
And I have no idea what you mean by "experiencing the pain". I have competed (not in Starcraft), and single elimination was the most normal thing in the world then. In fact back then I wasn't even aware there was an alternative. I think people can handle that "pain", given that's how it's done in mostly every tournament and competition worldwide... INCLUDING Starcraft.
|
I hate it, i actually hate it. the chances of a series being anticlimactic waaayy outweigh the chances of it being a super mega awesome comeback
|
Its fair to the players, but its still retarded, I mean if Huk knocks MKP to the losers bracket, then MKP beats one player, then has to play HuK on even footing, that isn't fair lol, but at the same time, You don't want to watch a final / semi final when someone has a 2-0 advantage.
So this is how i see it, Losers bracket is retarded, but being as they have it, they need to have extended series or it wouldn't be unfair.
My fix is they keep the pool / open bracket the same, but the top 2 people from each pool go through to the round of 8 that is bo5, along with the round of 4, then the finals is bo7.
|
I am surprised how much I am against it.
Think it was in the guinness world records. Some guy made a world record for fasted vehicle on land. It only had three wheels, guinness didnt accept their world record because they say that the vehicle needs to have four wheels, because of this a slower car with four wheels got the world record.
The point is, guinness can make their own rules on their records but the true holder of the world record is the car with three wheels, you cannot take that away from them.
In a bo3 tournament like MLG I feel the same. They can make the extended series but for me, no matter how their rules are, Boxer is the winner in the bo3 against IdrA.
(edit, just as example, dont have anything against IdrA)
This makes me feel cheated on.
but maybe I am irrational?
|
I think the rule is necessary but I don't like it. There are a few complicated examples of why it is needed but I'll just pick the simplest one. Imagine MLG would keep the current format and get rid of extended series. Now consider the following example:
Player A meets Player B in the winner brackets final. Player A goes 2:0 and advances to the grand final. Player B is knocked down to the loser's bracket final and manages to win. He also advances to the grand final and will face player A again. They will play now a best of 3 for the title (this would also work for a best of x). Player B wins 2:1 and takes the tournament. The problem is now that if you combine both games and look at the total score it will be 3:2 for Player A. So despite having won more games on that day against Player B he will still loose the tournament.
Call me crazy but I think people would call that also unfair. In the end my problem doesn't lie with the extended series rule but with the entire system that forces this rule to exist. My biggest problem is that I think it is ridiculous to have a best of 3 grand final after such a big tournament.
|
No, that would just be "the Final".
I really don't care what happened in a BO3 in the quarter finals as long as one guy wins the BO5(!) in the Final. Actually I don't like double elimination for that sole reason... It might be "fair" to give an advantage to the "winner bracket"-winner but well, I just don't care about fairness when it is often just transforming an exciting final into a farce.
|
On October 17 2011 20:33 BlueSpace wrote:
I think the rule is necessary but I don't like it. There are a few complicated examples of why it is needed but I'll just pick the simplest one. Imagine MLG would keep the current format and get rid of extended series. Now consider the following example:
Player A meets Player B in the winner brackets final. Player A goes 2:0 and advances to the grand final. Player B is knocked down to the loser's bracket final and manages to win. He also advances to the grand final and will face player A again. They will play now a best of 3 for the title (this would also work for a best of x). Player B wins 2:1 and takes the tournament. The problem is now that if you combine both games and look at the total score it will be 3:2 for Player A. So despite having won more games on that day against Player B he will still loose the tournament.
Call me crazy but I think people would call that also unfair. In the end my problem doesn't lie with the extended series rule but with the entire system that forces this rule to exist. My biggest problem is that I think it is ridiculous to have a best of 3 grand final after such a big tournament.
Why is it unfair?
the first bo3 is to determen who will go to the final and who will need to fight another game to go to the final.
Player B loses and now needs to fight another player that has fought himself thourgh the whole turnament. He wins this match and deserves his place in the final.
Now he fights the player who he played first. they both have gotten their places in the final in their own ways and both deserve to be there. But player A gets an advantage because he has beaten player B earlier in the tournament, isnt that unfair?
Maybe this is a fun example.
There are players A, B and C.
Player A and B play to see who goes to the final.
PLayer A wins 2-0
PLayer B needs to play player C now.
PLayer B wins 2-0
Now player A and B need to fight again.
Player B wins 2-1
The scores between playe A and B are 3-2
but player B is also 2-0 against player C
So player A is 3-2 in total while Player B is 4-3 in total.
Only if player A also needed to beat player C I can see the extended series to be fair.
(edit, altought I am using this example for you, I am against the idea of counting maps in a bo3, there is just a winnner and a loser imo)
|
I think everybody will agree that the extended series brings about a very bad finals. If you look at it, the person from the winner's bracket will more often than not face someone who he's knocked out before. This makes the one coming from the Loser's bracket in a huge disadvantage especially considering the volatility of a BO3, not to mention that he has to have played more games to get there too.
Objectively speaking it might be essential for the integrity of the tournament as a whole. However I'd like to point out that one thing that definitely should be fixed if it stays is the problem of the "Loser's map choice".
10. The loser of a Game must select the Map for the next Game.
11. No Map may be played more than once in the same Best of 3 Game Match, Best of 7 Game Match, or in the Finals.
SC2 is heavily map dependant for different races and playstyles. Even if the winner has the advantage of the extended series, I feel that giving him the advantage of the maps as well makes it too huge.
|
On October 17 2011 20:51 Deckkie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 20:33 BlueSpace wrote:
I think the rule is necessary but I don't like it. There are a few complicated examples of why it is needed but I'll just pick the simplest one. Imagine MLG would keep the current format and get rid of extended series. Now consider the following example:
Player A meets Player B in the winner brackets final. Player A goes 2:0 and advances to the grand final. Player B is knocked down to the loser's bracket final and manages to win. He also advances to the grand final and will face player A again. They will play now a best of 3 for the title (this would also work for a best of x). Player B wins 2:1 and takes the tournament. The problem is now that if you combine both games and look at the total score it will be 3:2 for Player A. So despite having won more games on that day against Player B he will still loose the tournament.
Call me crazy but I think people would call that also unfair. In the end my problem doesn't lie with the extended series rule but with the entire system that forces this rule to exist. My biggest problem is that I think it is ridiculous to have a best of 3 grand final after such a big tournament. Why is it unfair? the first bo3 is to determen who will go to the final and who will need to fight another game to go to the final. Player B loses and now needs to fight another player that has fought himself thourgh the whole turnament. He wins this match and deserves his place in the final. Now he fights the player who he played first. they both have gotten their places in the final in their own ways and both deserve to be there. But player A gets an advantage because he has beaten player B earlier in the tournament, isnt that unfair? Maybe this is a fun example. There are players A, B and C. Player A and B play to see who goes to the final. PLayer A wins 2-0 PLayer B needs to play player C now. PLayer B wins 2-0 Now player A and B need to fight again. Player B wins 2-1 The scores between playe A and B are 3-2 but player B is also 2-0 against player C So player A is 3-2 in total while Player B is 3-4 in total. Only if player A also needed to beat player C I can see the extended series to be fair.
I don't understand the argument. This is about comparing Player A and Player B. Not judging how they did in the tournament against other players directly. Also Player A played less games then Player B in your example making the comparison somewhat arbitrary.
But just for the sake of the argument if you look at the way that the MLG bracket works you can very easily construct an example where Player A will have faced off against Player C in pool play by having started off in the same group. Player C will have fallen into the loser bracket after losing to Player A in pool. Afterwards he manages to go through the loser bracket and advances to the loser's bracket final where he will be beaten by Player B.
Assume Player A beat player C 2:0 in pool play and the loser's bracket final ended 2:0 for Player B. Your "overall score" now says 5:4. Makes the example slightly more complicated but the point still stands. Without extended series you can construct examples where the "overall weaker" player wins.
With that being said you could of course try to construct another example where Player A was beaten by Player C in pool play but still managed to advance to the winner's bracket final but then you will be able to find a Player D that will have beaten Player C but lost to Player A and so on and so forth.
The system is "fair" but it sucks because it produces tilted games that might be "mathematically fair" but feel emotionally extremely unsatisfying. I really don't like the rule but there is a logic behind it unfortunately. If you are able to construct an example where Player A is overall worse then Player B and still takes the tournament please tell me... then I can hate on the rule with everything not just my emotional side 
|
I dont like it boxer would have moved on to the next round with ease against idra. Although he didnt play well in pool play he was like a completely different player in the championship bracket and he performed extremely well. I think players should start with a clean slate if they meet a player later on in the tournament, they should have the same equal chance to beat the person as they did the first time. Not to mention you get an advantage from beating someone already (better seed) why do you need to double up on advantages. Someone who plays worse has to play multiple games in a row in the championship bracket and then on top of that has to possibly play a best of 7 fromm 2 games behind. I dont like it and i really hope MLG scraps it next season. It doesnt leads to dissapointment for the viewers when they know that in any other tournament X player would have advanced if it werent for the extended series.
The only reason i like it is because at least some of the matches are best of 7's (best of 5's really) but mlg should just change their format so that losers and winners bracket finals are best of 5's and the finals are a best of 7. Nothing is more dissapointing then watching a best of 3 final at a tournament, or having to watch a player win 2 best of 3's in a row when the player fromm the winners bracket only has to win one. You know their is too much of an advantage for the player from the winners bracket when a player fromm the losers bracket has NEVER won an Mlg before. Isnt having to play like 4x(or more) as many games to get to the finals as the player from the winners bracket enough already?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
