|
Extended series SUCKS. Make Loser win 2 Bo3s and Winner win 1 Bo3 to win.
|
On October 17 2011 21:13 BlueSpace wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 20:51 Deckkie wrote: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 
Yeh, the example maybe isnt the brightest.
Every game determens where you will go next in the tournament. it shouldnt matter who you beat or who you lost too. If a player comes in the situation where he has to play someone he played before, he is in that situation because he deserves it. He has beaten other players and prooved that he deserves the spot. That he now has to play someone he lost to before shouldnt matter for a tournament.
Lets say we are watching the world cup. Gemany wins al the pool games except one where they loose 0-2 to Netherlands. Now they meet again in the final. Germany has earned his spot in this final because they made their way though a lot of other teams, beating all of them. That gemany lost in the pool play against the Netherlands shouldnt matter for the tournament becasue they both deserved their spot in their own way. (can you imagine that the Netherlands would start with a 2-0 lead?)
edit: need to work on my english
|
On October 17 2011 21:30 ShootingStars wrote:
Extended series SUCKS. Make Loser win 2 Bo3s and Winner win 1 Bo3 to win.
This is an example of someone not understanding the rule.
I think one of the problems is a lot of people, more than those who said so in the poll, don't actually understand the rule.
Personally, it is very fair, especially how MLG makes their brackets. I still think it is stupid for a couple of reasons.
1) MLG purposefully tries to have extended series, in both the LB and in the Championship Bracket
2) There is already punishment for losing a game
I can see MLG's point about wanting to make every pool game meaningful - if that's the case, I could live with Extended Series for pool play (although it still sucks), but it definitely has to go for open bracket play.
|
On October 17 2011 21:30 ShootingStars wrote:
Extended series SUCKS. Make Loser win 2 Bo3s and Winner win 1 Bo3 to win.
I don't really see the difference between Extended Series and having to win 1 or 2 bo3's (old format). If anything, it's even better for the loser... let me explain
In the case of HuK vs MC. Huk started 2-1. So this means he only had to win 2 maps, which equals to only having to win 1 bo3. In the old format MC would have had to win 2 bo3's, which equals to 4 maps. Instead, having won 1 earlier he only had to win 3 maps to get the championship
So it's even better for the loser if they won a map earlier, don't see why it's bad :\
|
I have a question.
What if the the Player B won against Player A 2-0 in pool play. Player A ends up being the winner bracket finalist and Player B is the loser bracket finalist. Will Player B have an advantage in the grand finals because of their earlier history even though he is coming from the loser's bracket?
|
On October 17 2011 21:50 jiabung wrote:
I have a question.
What if the the Player B won against Player A 2-0 in pool play. Player A ends up being the winner bracket finalist and Player B is the loser bracket finalist. Will Player B have an advantage in the grand finals because of their earlier history even though he is coming from the loser's bracket?
...
Yes. Theoretically possible but very rare.
|
I don't have a problem with the extended series, it's a weird rule and we could do without it but it's indeed somewhat fair to the players.
However, it yields very one-sided and short finals (MVP vs MMA, HuK vs MC) and it's a shame for us viewers. We would like to see a full Bo7 in the finals, not a one-sided Bo3 (because the fact that the challenger is at a score disadvantage must weigh on his mind I guess, it's really hard to come back from that).
|
On October 17 2011 21:48 ManaO wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 21:30 ShootingStars wrote:
Extended series SUCKS. Make Loser win 2 Bo3s and Winner win 1 Bo3 to win. I don't really see the difference between Extended Series and having to win 1 or 2 bo3's (old format). If anything, it's even better for the loser... let me explain In the case of HuK vs MC. Huk started 2-1. So this means he only had to win 2 maps, which equals to only having to win 1 bo3. In the old format MC would have had to win 2 bo3's, which equals to 4 maps. Instead, having won 1 earlier he only had to win 3 maps to get the championship So it's even better for the loser if they won a map earlier, don't see why it's bad :\
That's only half correct. If the loser wins the 2nd Bo3 2-1, then the winner ends up having to win 3 games instead of 2. Which rule is better for the loser depends on whether the first clash went 2-0 or 2-1, and on whether the first [edit: next] 3 games go 2-0 or 2-1 for the loser.
|
First match - Idra 2 Boxer 0
Second match(extended series) - Idra took first game and then Boxer took the next 3, then Idra took 1
So technically, in the rematch Boxer was the better player but because of extended series, the "lesser" player advances because of a previous match earlier in the tournament. I see it as unfair because when Idra beat Boxer in the first match, Idra received higher seeding so his "advantage" was that he needed to play fewer games to reach the finals.
I do agree that if you faced a previous opponent and beat them then you should have some sort of small advantage, I would say something like getting first map choice, or having the ability to downvote 2-3 maps instead of 1 etc
|
On October 17 2011 21:59 Trang wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 21:48 ManaO wrote:On October 17 2011 21:30 ShootingStars wrote:
Extended series SUCKS. Make Loser win 2 Bo3s and Winner win 1 Bo3 to win. I don't really see the difference between Extended Series and having to win 1 or 2 bo3's (old format). If anything, it's even better for the loser... let me explain In the case of HuK vs MC. Huk started 2-1. So this means he only had to win 2 maps, which equals to only having to win 1 bo3. In the old format MC would have had to win 2 bo3's, which equals to 4 maps. Instead, having won 1 earlier he only had to win 3 maps to get the championship So it's even better for the loser if they won a map earlier, don't see why it's bad :\ That's only half correct. If the loser wins the 2nd Bo3 2-1, then the winner ends up having to win 3 games instead of 2. Which rule is better for the loser depends on whether the first clash went 2-0 or 2-1, and on whether the first [edit: next] 3 games go 2-0 or 2-1 for the loser.
True as well, didn't think of it that way. Oh well, I'm still neutral on the matter but I guess there are too many variables with the extended series then
|
On October 17 2011 22:08 ManaO wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 21:59 Trang wrote:On October 17 2011 21:48 ManaO wrote:On October 17 2011 21:30 ShootingStars wrote:
Extended series SUCKS. Make Loser win 2 Bo3s and Winner win 1 Bo3 to win. I don't really see the difference between Extended Series and having to win 1 or 2 bo3's (old format). If anything, it's even better for the loser... let me explain In the case of HuK vs MC. Huk started 2-1. So this means he only had to win 2 maps, which equals to only having to win 1 bo3. In the old format MC would have had to win 2 bo3's, which equals to 4 maps. Instead, having won 1 earlier he only had to win 3 maps to get the championship So it's even better for the loser if they won a map earlier, don't see why it's bad :\ That's only half correct. If the loser wins the 2nd Bo3 2-1, then the winner ends up having to win 3 games instead of 2. Which rule is better for the loser depends on whether the first clash went 2-0 or 2-1, and on whether the first [edit: next] 3 games go 2-0 or 2-1 for the loser. True as well, didn't think of it that way. Oh well, I'm still neutral on the matter but I guess there are too many variables with the extended series then
The big difference is that in the extended series format it depends on individual results.
in double elimination it doesnt. Everybody gets a second chance.
So in the losers vs winners finals, the loser has already used his "get out of jail for free" card. The winner did not. He can still lose a series go to the "loser bracket" and get his second chance.
Not comparable.
|
There are two problems with the extended series rule:
1. It's a rule trying to enforce fairness
2. It makes the rules inconsistent
What I mean by #1 is that the most common argument for the extended series rule is that it's unfair if player A gets eliminated by player B even though player A had the better head to head score. That's certainly an understandable opinion, but many people will say that the extended series is in fact more unfair for all the reasons listed a hundred times over in this thread. Which is less fair is not relevant because it's entirely subjective, and therein lies the problem. You shouldn't have a rule that tries to improve the fairness because you will never succeed. The fact that you're meddling with the fairness will only call it into question even more.
A tournament can only be fair in its format by having consistency in its rules. Maybe it's not fair that someone had an easier road to the finals or that they got to start the series on a map that favoured them, but you will not improve the situation by making exceptions in the rules.
Extended series is an inconsistency in the rules. A win is always a win, doesn't matter how you got it. A bunker rush counts for as much as a 40 minute macro game, a total blowout doesn't give you more points than a base race that goes down to the wire. There's a cutoff point where you say "this person won" and that's it. Even in the pool play the map score is only used as the third tie breaker. When you face someone again in an extended series then it suddenly matters how you won, even though it otherwise never does.
|
On October 17 2011 21:40 Deckkie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 21:13 BlueSpace wrote:On October 17 2011 20:51 Deckkie wrote: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 Yeh, the example maybe isnt the brightest. Every game determens where you will go next in the tournament. it shouldnt matter who you beat or who you lost too. If a player comes in the situation where he has to play someone he played before, he is in that situation because he deserves it. He has beaten other players and prooved that he deserves the spot. That he now has to play someone he lost to before shouldnt matter for a tournament. Lets say we are watching the world cup. Gemany wins al the pool games except one where they loose 0-2 to Netherlands. Now they meet again in the final. Germany has earned his spot in this final because they made their way though a lot of other teams, beating all of them. That gemany lost in the pool play against the Netherlands shouldnt matter for the tournament becasue they both deserved their spot in their own way. (can you imagine that the Netherlands would start with a 2-0 lead?) edit: need to work on my english
Good example... although I don't see Germany losing to Netherlands in Soccer ... Anyways we should probably keep this out of this thread in order not to scare our friends across the Atlantic.
To maybe rephrase a little my point. I don't think the kind of fairness the extended series rule creates is "good", but by removing it without changing the entire system you will create new problems. I see your point now a little better though and I think there is a rational argument for saying past games shouldn't matter in the tournament.
In the end I get the impression that MLG wanted to create sth. really clever and they ended up with awkward. Why not just seed more players from the open bracket into pool play and then have a standard single elimination round with the top spots from the groups?
|
It does NOT punish you twice over.
- For sucking in the group, one is punished with a low seed
- For sucking against a particular player, one has a disadvantage in the extended series
But I still think it's a bad rule because past results should not affect your chances of winning a particular match, because one who gets thrashed earlier suddenly is more likely to get thrashed again. It's not forced fairness. The rule is artificial and should be abandoned.
|
On October 17 2011 21:40 Deckkie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 21:13 BlueSpace wrote:On October 17 2011 20:51 Deckkie wrote: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 Yeh, the example maybe isnt the brightest. Every game determens where you will go next in the tournament. it shouldnt matter who you beat or who you lost too. If a player comes in the situation where he has to play someone he played before, he is in that situation because he deserves it. He has beaten other players and prooved that he deserves the spot. That he now has to play someone he lost to before shouldnt matter for a tournament. Lets say we are watching the world cup. Gemany wins al the pool games except one where they loose 0-2 to Netherlands. Now they meet again in the final. Germany has earned his spot in this final because they made their way though a lot of other teams, beating all of them. That gemany lost in the pool play against the Netherlands shouldnt matter for the tournament becasue they both deserved their spot in their own way. (can you imagine that the Netherlands would start with a 2-0 lead?) edit: need to work on my english
The difference between "sports" and starcraft is in how it is scored.
Unlike most "sports" starcraft is scored by WINNING the game. Best of 3 GAMES is the actual rule. In a sport, you can't carry on points because it's a totally different game, training has happened, player changes, formation changes.
In a starcraft live event, however, the only way to change anything is to do what boxer did and stay late and practice. Since each game is a game in of itself, there is no penalty in the extended series.
This is simply what happens
Player a beat Player B 2-1, thats 3 totally seperate games. Player a and player b meet up again, TOTAL GAMES are still, 2-1. Therefore, the series is extended to Bo7.
Thats all, plain and simple.
imo, i feel like this is an issue where it's "fair and i dont see how anyone can see its not fair" and "unfair and anyone that cant see it is stupid" are the only two viable opinions outside of "the whole damn thing is flawed".
|
the rule is fair, and i think the rule is fine, id like them to change it though.
|
I don't think it is fair b/c its at a different time in the tourny, a play could be 2-0'd by someone, but has a HUGE comeback and has a lot of momentum but has to win 4? it should be reset'd, not a continuation...its a different time/day in the tourny if they want a BO7 all the games should be at the same time, don't extend it....its just silly.
|
It's so unbelievably god awful, it's the #1 thing bringing down MLG.
On October 18 2011 00:42 darklight54321 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 21:40 Deckkie wrote:On October 17 2011 21:13 BlueSpace wrote:On October 17 2011 20:51 Deckkie wrote: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 Yeh, the example maybe isnt the brightest. Every game determens where you will go next in the tournament. it shouldnt matter who you beat or who you lost too. If a player comes in the situation where he has to play someone he played before, he is in that situation because he deserves it. He has beaten other players and prooved that he deserves the spot. That he now has to play someone he lost to before shouldnt matter for a tournament. Lets say we are watching the world cup. Gemany wins al the pool games except one where they loose 0-2 to Netherlands. Now they meet again in the final. Germany has earned his spot in this final because they made their way though a lot of other teams, beating all of them. That gemany lost in the pool play against the Netherlands shouldnt matter for the tournament becasue they both deserved their spot in their own way. (can you imagine that the Netherlands would start with a 2-0 lead?) edit: need to work on my english The difference between "sports" and starcraft is in how it is scored. Unlike most "sports" starcraft is scored by WINNING the game. Best of 3 GAMES is the actual rule. In a sport, you can't carry on points because it's a totally different game, training has happened, player changes, formation changes. In a starcraft live event, however, the only way to change anything is to do what boxer did and stay late and practice. Since each game is a game in of itself, there is no penalty in the extended series. This is simply what happens Player a beat Player B 2-1, thats 3 totally seperate games. Player a and player b meet up again, TOTAL GAMES are still, 2-1. Therefore, the series is extended to Bo7. Thats all, plain and simple. imo, i feel like this is an issue where it's "fair and i dont see how anyone can see its not fair" and "unfair and anyone that cant see it is stupid" are the only two viable opinions outside of "the whole damn thing is flawed".
You failed to make any point how there's a difference in scoring. If soccer instead had the Netherlands 2-0 Germany in a Bo3 in pool play (just say that's how tournament format worked), and the finals were Bo7 (many sports NBA, NHL, MLB in the US are done with this format), should Netherlands start out the Bo7 with a 2-0 lead? No, that's fucking retarded. Netherlands going 2-0 vs Germany in pool play advances what seed they'll get in the bracket - THAT is the only reward they should get for beating Germany. Basically Netherlands will get rewarded if Germany makes the finals and will be rewarded "less" if a different team makes it that they might have previously gone 0-2 vs.
|
On October 18 2011 00:42 darklight54321 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 21:40 Deckkie wrote:On October 17 2011 21:13 BlueSpace wrote:On October 17 2011 20:51 Deckkie wrote: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 Yeh, the example maybe isnt the brightest. Every game determens where you will go next in the tournament. it shouldnt matter who you beat or who you lost too. If a player comes in the situation where he has to play someone he played before, he is in that situation because he deserves it. He has beaten other players and prooved that he deserves the spot. That he now has to play someone he lost to before shouldnt matter for a tournament. Lets say we are watching the world cup. Gemany wins al the pool games except one where they loose 0-2 to Netherlands. Now they meet again in the final. Germany has earned his spot in this final because they made their way though a lot of other teams, beating all of them. That gemany lost in the pool play against the Netherlands shouldnt matter for the tournament becasue they both deserved their spot in their own way. (can you imagine that the Netherlands would start with a 2-0 lead?) edit: need to work on my english The difference between "sports" and starcraft is in how it is scored. Unlike most "sports" starcraft is scored by WINNING the game. Best of 3 GAMES is the actual rule. In a sport, you can't carry on points because it's a totally different game, training has happened, player changes, formation changes. In a starcraft live event, however, the only way to change anything is to do what boxer did and stay late and practice. Since each game is a game in of itself, there is no penalty in the extended series. This is simply what happens Player a beat Player B 2-1, thats 3 totally seperate games. Player a and player b meet up again, TOTAL GAMES are still, 2-1. Therefore, the series is extended to Bo7. Thats all, plain and simple. imo, i feel like this is an issue where it's "fair and i dont see how anyone can see its not fair" and "unfair and anyone that cant see it is stupid" are the only two viable opinions outside of "the whole damn thing is flawed".
You totally missed my point.
The reason I react to this is because it looks like you have no idea how the world cup works. So why say something about it then?
|
On October 18 2011 00:42 darklight54321 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 21:40 Deckkie wrote:On October 17 2011 21:13 BlueSpace wrote:On October 17 2011 20:51 Deckkie wrote: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 Yeh, the example maybe isnt the brightest. Every game determens where you will go next in the tournament. it shouldnt matter who you beat or who you lost too. If a player comes in the situation where he has to play someone he played before, he is in that situation because he deserves it. He has beaten other players and prooved that he deserves the spot. That he now has to play someone he lost to before shouldnt matter for a tournament. Lets say we are watching the world cup. Gemany wins al the pool games except one where they loose 0-2 to Netherlands. Now they meet again in the final. Germany has earned his spot in this final because they made their way though a lot of other teams, beating all of them. That gemany lost in the pool play against the Netherlands shouldnt matter for the tournament becasue they both deserved their spot in their own way. (can you imagine that the Netherlands would start with a 2-0 lead?) edit: need to work on my english The difference between "sports" and starcraft is in how it is scored. Unlike most "sports" starcraft is scored by WINNING the game. Best of 3 GAMES is the actual rule. In a sport, you can't carry on points because it's a totally different game, training has happened, player changes, formation changes. In a starcraft live event, however, the only way to change anything is to do what boxer did and stay late and practice. Since each game is a game in of itself, there is no penalty in the extended series. This is simply what happens Player a beat Player B 2-1, thats 3 totally seperate games. Player a and player b meet up again, TOTAL GAMES are still, 2-1. Therefore, the series is extended to Bo7. Thats all, plain and simple.
What counts in SC2 is the MATCH. Not Games. Games won only becomes relevant when there's a tie in matches won. There's a lot of metagaming and mind games going on within a BoX so one player might cannon rush one game, not necessarily to win but to make the other player play more cautiously in the following games. It's a common tactic and is used because individual games means nothing(little), it's the match(BoX) that counts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
