MLG extended Series Poll - Page 55

duct_TAPE

492 Posts

October 17 2011 16:41 GMT

#1081

I don't like the extended series concept, I can see that it is a 'fair' system that rewards the player which 2-0 or 2-1 their opponent. The thing that bothers me is if a player met someone early in the event and has to play the same opponent in the semi's 1-2 days after.
For me it just destroys the competetiveness and sport in it if a player has a 2-0 advantage, especially going into a semis or finals with a 2-0 lead. Going into a match I feel that MLG should try to provide an even footing for the players everytime.
"You won the BO3 yesterday? I can come back in the BO3 we have to play today!" I feel this is the best experience for the viewer, I am not sure how the players themselves think about it, that is of course a factor too.

OnlineHero

Denmark647 Posts

October 17 2011 16:43 GMT

#1082

I kind of like the rule. It makes every single game important. Non of that "I'm already nr 1 in my group, this game is not important" stuff.

-Secret-

United Kingdom233 Posts

October 17 2011 16:44 GMT

#1083

unfair the emporer lost because of this

TheToast

United States4808 Posts

October 17 2011 17:54 GMT

#1084

On October 17 2011 21:45 FairForever wrote:

Show nested quote +

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.

This. Reading many of the posts in here, I'm certain that there is a good number of people who don't really understand the rule and all of its implications. I'm seeing a lot of people objecting on the grounds that extended series rules make for boring finals--which is a completely legitimate objection. But there are so many subtle effects of the rule that really add competitiveness and fairness to the tournament which I think are being overlooked.

On October 18 2011 01:39 Longshank wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 18 2011 00:42 darklight54321 wrote:

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.

This is actually a decent point, and I think presents a valid view. However I would argue that the extended series rule doesn't change this fact; the match simply becomes a bo7. Utilizing the tactics you mentioned are still rewarding to the player if successful. If cheesing one game allows you to take the first bo3, then in the next meeting between the two players you are still in a great lead. The match still matters.

jonathan1

United States395 Posts

October 17 2011 18:09 GMT

#1085

extended series ruins the finals almost every time. this MLG finals sucked. ONLY TWO games were played, a 4gate and and fail cannon cheese and its over. like wtf?

SpurvL

Sweden345 Posts

October 17 2011 18:14 GMT

#1086

Yeah, kinda killed this final tbh, not saying it's unfair, but more games = good. Thats pretty much where i stand on this ^_^

typedef struct

United States84 Posts

October 17 2011 18:18 GMT

#1087

Any rule that lets the grand finals be determined in 2 games is ok by me!

Naeroon

Canada166 Posts

October 17 2011 18:27 GMT

#1088

The extended series has made every MLG final I have watched incredibly boring. These two master players fought all the way to the top, and the entire tournament has been nothing but great games, but having the finals be a bo7 with one player already being up 2 wins is honestly frustrating to watch, and I am sure it is just as frustrating to play.

I mean seriously. No offence meant to HuK or MC, but those finals were probably the least interesting series I watched over the ENTIRE weekend.

ThaZenith

Canada3116 Posts

October 17 2011 18:30 GMT

#1089

Well, there needs to be an advantage to the winner, but a little less heavy might be nice.

If you beat them before, maybe starting up 1 game in a Bo5 would be fine, or starting up 1 game in a Bo7 if it's the finals.

Xlancer

United States126 Posts

October 17 2011 18:32 GMT

#1090

I find it interesting how so many players complained about how IPL3's pool play didn't mean anything, yet they are also complaining about how the extended series rule makes MLG's pool play mean too much.

Lobo2me

Norway1213 Posts

October 17 2011 18:34 GMT

#1091

On October 18 2011 03:09 jonathan1 wrote:
extended series ruins the finals almost every time. this MLG finals sucked. ONLY TWO games were played, a 4gate and and fail cannon cheese and its over. like wtf?

The extended series actually doesn't matter at all in the finals. If MC and Huk hadn't played before, Huk would still only need to win one BO3 to win the tournament, and MC would need to win two BO3 (which in practice would be a BO3+the BO7 extended series of the first BO3).

DarkRise

1644 Posts

October 17 2011 18:57 GMT

#1092

I think its fair and past matches should matter
Some players are smart and if they know they can't win their group they will try and place in an easier bracket

FabledIntegral

United States9232 Posts

October 17 2011 19:23 GMT

#1093

On October 18 2011 03:34 Lobo2me wrote:

Show nested quote +

Well it in fact does matter. With extended series HuK only has to win 2 games total. With the separate Bo3's, HuK can go 1-2 twice and still lose to MC. So it still gives an advantage.

r_con

United States824 Posts

October 17 2011 19:32 GMT

#1094

On October 18 2011 04:23 FabledIntegral wrote:

Show nested quote +

Well it in fact does matter. With extended series HuK only has to win 2 games total. With the separate Bo3's, HuK can go 1-2 twice and still lose to MC. So it still gives an advantage.

actually no it doesn't

If MC and Huk never met each other in pool play. MC would have to win 2 best of threes so MC has to win 4 games, huk just has to win 2, just like it was already.

actually extended series helped MC in double elim, cause MC was 1-2 down, so had to win 3 matches, rather than 4 if traditional double elimination.

Sadist

United States7328 Posts

October 18 2011 03:40 GMT

#1095

On October 18 2011 04:32 r_con wrote:

Show nested quote +

actually no it doesn't

If MC and Huk never met each other in pool play. MC would have to win 2 best of threes so MC has to win 4 games, huk just has to win 2, just like it was already.

actually extended series helped MC in double elim, cause MC was 1-2 down, so had to win 3 matches, rather than 4 if traditional double elimination.

You don't seem to get that its easier to win 2 games out of 5 than win an actual BO3.

2 Bo3's vs extended series is actually quite a significant deal.

FabledIntegral

United States9232 Posts

October 18 2011 21:32 GMT

#1096

On October 18 2011 04:32 r_con wrote:

Show nested quote +

Try again.

photomuse

United States102 Posts

October 18 2011 21:41 GMT

#1097

I like the rule a lot. I means the players can't coast through the group stages like some did at IPL3. They can't save their best for the "real tournament" because if they don't try in the groups, then they might find themselves down 0-2 or 1-2.

rotegirte

Germany2859 Posts

October 18 2011 21:45 GMT

#1098

On October 19 2011 06:41 photomuse wrote:
I like the rule a lot. I means the players can't coast through the group stages like some did at IPL3. They can't save their best for the "real tournament" because if they don't try in the groups, then they might find themselves down 0-2 or 1-2.

because with an already stacked lineup, being placed further down the bracket and having to play less games in general is an incentive to slack off in group play?

FabledIntegral

United States9232 Posts

October 18 2011 21:46 GMT

#1099

How in the world do you coast through group stages? Drop a single set and you're in the losers bracket most likely instead of the championship bracket (not always).

TheOGBlitzKrieg

United States346 Posts

October 18 2011 21:47 GMT

#1100

it's really confusing to a newer crowd, and the dedicated crowd doesn't like it, why does it exist? a finals match should be an even, bo7 regardless if they've met before or not period. the losing player already had to work through the losers bracket to get where they are, the winning player got the advantage of not having to strain his body and mind by only playing a handful of games and being in the finals.

Prev 1 53 54 55 56 57 72 Next

Please or register to reply.

MLG extended Series Poll - Page 55

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming