|
Holy god this is the thread that will never die.
On March 26 2012 14:25 -orb- wrote:
1: Extended series - a rule that should be removed because the vast majority of the community is against it, regardless of whether or not it is fair. The rule itself is not important at all. If almost your entire audience is petitioning and asking for something to be changed that costs no money to be changed, you have to be insane not to change it.
2: Map pool - unfortunately every single MLG to date has been quite far behind the curve with updating their map pool. This has been a consistent issue that they do not seem to care about improving upon. They require 3rd party map makers to submit thousands upon thousands of replays worth of statistics to prove a map is usable, yet implement truly horrendous Blizzard maps that literally have had no testing whatsoever. Almost every single other SC2 tournament in the world has a better map pool. Remember how long it took maps like steppes to be removed? Shattered temple? Now we still are dealing with Dual Sight and Metal? Where is Cloud Kingdom? Ohana? Metropolis?
Word. Well said.
|
There needs to be SOME form of extended series rule available for the finals.
Imagine today if Marineking didn't have the extended series even if he had beaten DRG once already in the Winner's semis, loses a single series with him in the finals and is thus denied first place even though DRG had two chances at the trophy and MKP had been undefeated up until that point?
How would that be fair?
Double elimination tournaments require that whoever comes from the winner's bracket have either a double series or an extended series with the person who comes from the lower bracket, that's the only way the double elimination format is fair to the person who has been playing the best all tournament, otherwise it's actually kind of a punishment for getting the top seed because you're denied the same second chance everyone else gets.
What I do have a problem with is the extended series being applied everywhere else in the tournament. To me, it's something that should be reserved for the finals only. It's unnecessary everywhere else in the tournament.
|
2228 Posts
On March 26 2012 14:25 -orb- wrote:
The way I see it there are only a couple things really holding MLG back, and there are seemingly no reasons whatsoever for these things:
1: Extended series - a rule that should be removed because the vast majority of the community is against it, regardless of whether or not it is fair. The rule itself is not important at all. If almost your entire audience is petitioning and asking for something to be changed that costs no money to be changed, you have to be insane not to change it.
This. Seriously, it doesn't cost them a single penny to change it. A majority of the fans would love and give them more support if they simply get rid of it. What is really stopping them?
|
2228 Posts
On March 26 2012 14:30 Vindicare605 wrote:
There needs to be SOME form of extended series rule available for the finals.
Imagine today if Marineking didn't have the extended series even if he had beaten DRG once already in the Winner's semis, loses a single series with him in the finals and is thus denied first place even though DRG had two chances at the trophy and MKP had been undefeated up until that point?
How would that be fair?
Double elimination tournaments require that whoever comes from the winner's bracket have either a double series or an extended series with the person who comes from the lower bracket, that's the only way the double elimination format is fair to the person who has been playing the best all tournament, otherwise it's actually kind of a punishment for getting the top seed because you're denied the same second chance everyone else gets.
What I do have a problem with is the extended series being applied everywhere else in the tournament. To me, it's something that should be reserved for the finals only. It's unnecessary everywhere else in the tournament.
The default format of double elimination gives the person coming from the Winner's bracket one lifeline. If they lose one set, they will then be on exactly even grounds with the losers's finalist; they then play another set to determine the champion.
Essentially, EVERYONE in the tournament has one lifeline, period. Everyone has to lose TWICE to be eliminated, hence the name double elimination.
What MLG is doing with extended series is messing up this very nature of the balance of double elimination. When two people meet again in the loser's, they should be on the exact same ground because they both only lost once. Sure, A might have lost to B, but B lost to someone else while A didn't (and had to play extra games to get back up); therefore if they were to meet again, it means they are at the EXACT ranking in the tournament; therefore neither player should have any EXTRA advantage from the extended series.
|
On March 26 2012 14:30 Vindicare605 wrote:
There needs to be SOME form of extended series rule available for the finals.
Imagine today if Marineking didn't have the extended series even if he had beaten DRG once already in the Winner's semis, loses a single series with him in the finals and is thus denied first place even though DRG had two chances at the trophy and MKP had been undefeated up until that point?
How would that be fair?
Double elimination tournaments require that whoever comes from the winner's bracket have either a double series or an extended series with the person who comes from the lower bracket, that's the only way the double elimination format is fair to the person who has been playing the best all tournament, otherwise it's actually kind of a punishment for getting the top seed because you're denied the same second chance everyone else gets.
What I do have a problem with is the extended series being applied everywhere else in the tournament. To me, it's something that should be reserved for the finals only. It's unnecessary everywhere else in the tournament.
That's usually called double-knockout -- not extended series.
|
On March 26 2012 14:36 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 14:30 Vindicare605 wrote:
There needs to be SOME form of extended series rule available for the finals.
Imagine today if Marineking didn't have the extended series even if he had beaten DRG once already in the Winner's semis, loses a single series with him in the finals and is thus denied first place even though DRG had two chances at the trophy and MKP had been undefeated up until that point?
How would that be fair?
Double elimination tournaments require that whoever comes from the winner's bracket have either a double series or an extended series with the person who comes from the lower bracket, that's the only way the double elimination format is fair to the person who has been playing the best all tournament, otherwise it's actually kind of a punishment for getting the top seed because you're denied the same second chance everyone else gets.
What I do have a problem with is the extended series being applied everywhere else in the tournament. To me, it's something that should be reserved for the finals only. It's unnecessary everywhere else in the tournament. The default format of double elimination gives the person coming from the Winner's bracket one lifeline. If they lose one set, they will then be on exactly even grounds with the losers's finalist; they then play another set to determine the champion. Essentially, EVERYONE in the tournament has one lifeline, period. Everyone has to lose TWICE to be eliminated, hence the name double elimination. What MLG is doing with extended series is messing up this very nature of the balance of double elimination. When two people meet again in the loser's, they should be on the exact same ground because they both only lost once. Sure, A might have lost to B, but B lost to someone else while A didn't (and had to play extra games to get back up); therefore if they were to meet again, it means they are at the EXACT ranking in the tournament; therefore neither player should have any EXTRA advantage from the extended series.
Like I said, double elimination requires for either a double or extended series in the finals.
I think a lot of people don't realize that if the extended series rule goes away you're still going to have the person in the upper bracket with an advantage in the finals. that advantage is SUPPOSED to be there, it's earned by having the best record in the tournament.
That said I already said I don't like the extended series rule everywhere else in the tournament that isn't the finals. the double elimination format is already designed to prevent too many upsets from knocking out top players, but the extended series rule in the lower parts puts an even greater disadvantage to people coming from lower brackets than it should.
|
On March 26 2012 14:25 -orb- wrote:
The way I see it there are only a couple things really holding MLG back, and there are seemingly no reasons whatsoever for these things:
1: Extended series - a rule that should be removed because the vast majority of the community is against it, regardless of whether or not it is fair. The rule itself is not important at all. If almost your entire audience is petitioning and asking for something to be changed that costs no money to be changed, you have to be insane not to change it.
2: Map pool - unfortunately every single MLG to date has been quite far behind the curve with updating their map pool. This has been a consistent issue that they do not seem to care about improving upon. They require 3rd party map makers to submit thousands upon thousands of replays worth of statistics to prove a map is usable, yet implement truly horrendous Blizzard maps that literally have had no testing whatsoever. Almost every single other SC2 tournament in the world has a better map pool. Remember how long it took maps like steppes to be removed? Shattered temple? Now we still are dealing with Dual Sight and Metal? Where is Cloud Kingdom? Ohana? Metropolis?
3: Short series - Everything being bo3 all the way until the finals isn't ideal. We would see better games and more consistency/fairness with bo5s starting from the championship bracket, but I understand this issue is harder to objectively look at and fix because of time constraints running a tournament on a single weekend.
Pretty much spot on IMO, they map pool really needs to change removing the older worse maps like metal and then replace them with maps like metropolis.
|
On November 08 2010 06:14 Kennigit wrote:
It's "fair" but like Huko said, it shouldn't be used....just don't like it :\
That's your opinion. I don't find it fair in the slightest, if you win a game in the groupstage, you start at an advantage in the brackets. That's what you get when you win.
If you look at a sport like football(soccer?) World Cup for example, the scores do not carry on from the group stages. I've never heard of any sport that works like this (or any e-sports tournament other than MLG either for that matter.
|
United States1353 Posts
On March 26 2012 08:21 exarchrum wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 08:15 dAPhREAk wrote:
who revived the horse so we can beat it to death again? The horse needs to be beaten until MLG changes this rule.
This may be the first time a horse beaten into oblivion. There's nothing left. MLG knows the community's opinion on the rule. They haven't changed it because they like it as a part of their format. Idk why..... but they do.
|
2228 Posts
On March 26 2012 14:39 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 14:36 Fubi wrote:On March 26 2012 14:30 Vindicare605 wrote:
There needs to be SOME form of extended series rule available for the finals.
Imagine today if Marineking didn't have the extended series even if he had beaten DRG once already in the Winner's semis, loses a single series with him in the finals and is thus denied first place even though DRG had two chances at the trophy and MKP had been undefeated up until that point?
How would that be fair?
Double elimination tournaments require that whoever comes from the winner's bracket have either a double series or an extended series with the person who comes from the lower bracket, that's the only way the double elimination format is fair to the person who has been playing the best all tournament, otherwise it's actually kind of a punishment for getting the top seed because you're denied the same second chance everyone else gets.
What I do have a problem with is the extended series being applied everywhere else in the tournament. To me, it's something that should be reserved for the finals only. It's unnecessary everywhere else in the tournament. The default format of double elimination gives the person coming from the Winner's bracket one lifeline. If they lose one set, they will then be on exactly even grounds with the losers's finalist; they then play another set to determine the champion. Essentially, EVERYONE in the tournament has one lifeline, period. Everyone has to lose TWICE to be eliminated, hence the name double elimination. What MLG is doing with extended series is messing up this very nature of the balance of double elimination. When two people meet again in the loser's, they should be on the exact same ground because they both only lost once. Sure, A might have lost to B, but B lost to someone else while A didn't (and had to play extra games to get back up); therefore if they were to meet again, it means they are at the EXACT ranking in the tournament; therefore neither player should have any EXTRA advantage from the extended series. Like I said, double elimination requires for either a double or extended series in the finals. I think a lot of people don't realize that if the extended series rule goes away you're still going to have the person in the upper bracket with an advantage in the finals. that advantage is SUPPOSED to be there, it's earned by having the best record in the tournament. That said I already said I don't like the extended series rule everywhere else in the tournament that isn't the finals. the double elimination format is already designed to prevent too many upsets from knocking out top players, but the extended series rule in the lower parts puts an even greater disadvantage to people coming from lower brackets than it should.
Having extended series IN the grand finals is a bit stupid too if you think about it (not as bad as every where else but still dumb).
For example, MKP and DRG meets in the grand finals today starting at 2-1. Now, for simplicity's sake, let's just keep it a Bo3 like they did before (bo7 or bo9 doesn't change the argument). If DRG wins the next 2 games, he would be 2-3 winning the first set. Here MKP loses the advantage he had coming from the winner's: his lifeline. BUT, the dumb part is they are starting the next set in an extended series starting with DRG up a game 3-2.
This is the part that wouldn't make sense: MKP came with an advantage(being from the Winner's): a lifeline. DRG didn't, since he came from loser's. DRG's wins overcame that advantage and took MKP's lifeline away. SO why the hell are they starting the next set with DRG having an advantage?!
|
i still think the complete MLG system is bad: to win out of the open bracket is almost impossible, its complicated to understand (even after almost two years), extended series is strange
i really prefer something like double group stage into single elim (just like dreamhack) over the mlg system
|
2228 Posts
|
On March 26 2012 14:31 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 14:25 -orb- wrote:
The way I see it there are only a couple things really holding MLG back, and there are seemingly no reasons whatsoever for these things:
1: Extended series - a rule that should be removed because the vast majority of the community is against it, regardless of whether or not it is fair. The rule itself is not important at all. If almost your entire audience is petitioning and asking for something to be changed that costs no money to be changed, you have to be insane not to change it. This. Seriously, it doesn't cost them a single penny to change it. A majority of the fans would love and give them more support if they simply get rid of it. What is really stopping them?
All that needs to be said. Audience doesn't like it.
And yes, winner's bracket winner still get an extra lifeline -- that doesn't go away.
To contribute to the theoretical discussion, the only thing I DO like about the extended series rule is that on the rare occasion where a Pool player is playing a match that will not effect their standings, it gives them another reason to play hard and win that match on the off chance they'll run into that person again later. But this isn't a huge problem and there are other ways to address it.
|
MKP's advantage is that he doesn't have to play Heart and risk elimination. There's no need to an advantage for the upper bracket winner.
Although I personally prefer single elimination.
|
Double elimination basically rules out certain players from ever winning the tournament on day 2. For example Naniwa was 2-0 down to DRG so no matter what he was never winning this MLG barring a phenomenal upset. That is a pretty big killjoy when you can rule out most of the players on Championship Sunday because they're already 2-0 down to someone.
On March 26 2012 14:50 Zeon0 wrote:
i still think the complete MLG system is bad: to win out of the open bracket is almost impossible, its complicated to understand (even after almost two years), extended series is strange
i really prefer something like double group stage into single elim (just like dreamhack) over the mlg system
The advantage of double elimination is that at an MLG I always feel like the guys who played the best at the tournament overall are basically accurately ranked as such.
Where as at Dreamhack and other events a guy can stomp his groups and then run up against a guy who a bit of a sniper for his race and then boom he's out. I feel you get a lot less bracket luck at MLG as well.
Overall I think I prefer single elimination but double elimination definitely has it's advantages.
|
Extended series HELPS the player from the losers bracket in the grand finals. WHY is that so hard to understand?
Without extended series, DRG would have to win TWO BO5's against MKP. With extended series, he kept his 1 win, meaning he only had to win 4 games instead of two BO5's. Extended series prevents that kind of huge advantage to the WB finals winner.
|
On March 26 2012 14:57 SolidMoose wrote:
Extended series HELPS the player from the losers bracket in the grand finals. WHY is that so hard to understand?
Without extended series, DRG would have to win TWO BO5's against MKP. With extended series, he kept his 1 win, meaning he only had to win 4 games instead of two BO5's. Extended series prevents that kind of huge advantage to the WB finals winner.
Who says they have to play a double best of five? Why can't it be a single best of five? MKP got his advantage by not having to play Heart.
|
Hopefully they remove it for next MLG cause it really killed the excitement for some matches once again
|
2228 Posts
On March 26 2012 14:57 SolidMoose wrote:
Extended series HELPS the player from the losers bracket in the grand finals. WHY is that so hard to understand?
Without extended series, DRG would have to win TWO BO5's against MKP. With extended series, he kept his 1 win, meaning he only had to win 4 games instead of two BO5's. Extended series prevents that kind of huge advantage to the WB finals winner.
But DRG is SUPPOSE to have to win two BoX to win against MKP. DRG lost once this whole tournament, MKP hasn't yet. So the first win is to bring MKP to even grounds with DRG, the 2nd win is to win the tournament. Why is it so hard to understand? That is how Double Elimination should work; therefore it makes utter nonsense to add in something that screws up this simple, easy to understand concept.
|
2228 Posts
On March 26 2012 14:59 Aemilia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 14:57 SolidMoose wrote:
Extended series HELPS the player from the losers bracket in the grand finals. WHY is that so hard to understand?
Without extended series, DRG would have to win TWO BO5's against MKP. With extended series, he kept his 1 win, meaning he only had to win 4 games instead of two BO5's. Extended series prevents that kind of huge advantage to the WB finals winner. Who says they have to play a double best of five? Why can't it be a single best of five? MKP got his advantage by not having to play Heart.
Yes, DRG had to beat Heart too, BUT you never gave MKP the OPPORTUNITY to play heart (or anyone else). Therefore, you can't just go "oh DRG beat Heart, it equalizes his loss to MKP".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
