EPTMLG extended Series Poll - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Maetl
United States93 Posts
| ||
|
PROJECTILE
United States226 Posts
If you don't want it to be fair, then whatever, that's a totally different issue. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On November 08 2010 07:20 zyzski wrote: if there's double elimination the guy who hasn't lost a single match has to have some sort of advantage, i think the rule is fine edit: i dont have any say in the ruleset for mlg, i just work here AGAINNNNNNNNN this might be true for GF, but not for regular LB, cause the guys BOTH already lost a bo3. (and for GF, view previous posts....) | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On November 08 2010 07:40 PROJECTILE wrote: The rule is fair if you're trying to determine the better player. In this case, any way you slice it, pain user won more games against nony (even if you give nony the game on LT that was cut short in which he had a big advantage). It felt like a lot of people were bigger fans of nony because of his longer history in the starcraft community and were whining because nony couldn't move on, but from an objective viewpoint, it's the right way to do things if you want the competition to be fair. If you don't want it to be fair, then whatever, that's a totally different issue. Annnnd again again again (can you read previous pages ?) here's an example : Let's say Nony lost 2-1 in WB. He then loses to the same guy 2-2 (ahahahah) in the loser's bracket. Makes it 3-4. HE HAS NOT LOST TO ANYONE ELSE. PainUser wins 4-3. HE HAS LOST ANOTHER SERIES BEFORE THAT. Being out of a DOUBLE BRACKET system by losing 3-4 is fair to you ? PainUser got knocked out by losing a series in WB, then losing 2-1 (tying it 2-2 afterwards but virtually lost a series there), THEN LOSING A THIRD ONE after that. Ok ? | ||
|
Tanstaafl
United Kingdom123 Posts
On November 08 2010 07:30 Maetl wrote: The smallest unit that should be considered in a double elimination tournament is the series. The fact that the BoX format is being used indicates that the individual game is an unreliable measure, and ought not to be dealt with directly. I completely agree. Really simple solution, folks. If the two players in an LB match previously played a Bo3 in the WB, they play a Bo3. If the player who lost the WB match wins the LB match, the two players play a tiebreaker game. This has the benefit of not weighing the LB series over the WB series (in terms of determining the players' tournament ranks), but it also doesn't care if the WB series was a 2-0 or a 2-1. It seems that the main problem with the current format is that if you start the LB series down two games, that is going to force you to play differently than you would in an actual Bo3. Decisions like whether to play safe or risk an all-in depend very heavily on your position in the series (i.e. how big a risk you are willing to absorb). Since the double-elimination format is pretty much entirely designed to yield player rankings that are a good reflection of who bested whom, I do think it's important that it's not just two straight Bo3s - but having a tiebreaker game is far preferable to the extended Bo7. | ||
|
PROJECTILE
United States226 Posts
On November 08 2010 07:44 Nouar wrote: Annnnd again again again (can you read previous pages ?) here's an example : Let's say Nony lost 2-1 in WB. He then loses to the same guy 2-2 (ahahahah) in the loser's bracket. Makes it 3-4. HE HAS NOT LOST TO ANYONE ELSE. PainUser wins 4-3. HE HAS LOST ANOTHER SERIES BEFORE THAT. Being out of a DOUBLE BRACKET system by losing 3-4 is fair to you ? PainUser got knocked out by losing a series in WB, then losing 2-1 (tying it 2-2 afterwards but virtually lost a series there), THEN LOSING A THIRD ONE after that. Ok ? You can argue both ways. Don't be an idiot (and presumptuous). It depends on what you value more as a standard for determining who is more deserving of moving on. Is it fair for painuser to be eliminated when he has a winning or even record against nony? You can make a case for both. | ||
|
Zlasher
United States9129 Posts
| ||
|
Pyrrhuloxia
United States6700 Posts
| ||
|
PROJECTILE
United States226 Posts
On November 08 2010 07:52 ZlaSHeR wrote: Nobody cares whether or not its fair becuse obviously everyone has the opportunity to be on both sides of it, fact is its a retarded rule that shouldn't be implemented in an RTS Why shouldn't it? Why should painuser be eliminated by someone he has a winning record against in the very same tourney? From an entertainment aspect I would agree it seems kind of silly, because winning a really uphill series has a pretty low probability and makes the entire series anticlimactic, but there's a good argument for its fairness. | ||
|
Daray
6006 Posts
THE BIG REASON THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED: It is waaaaay worse for spectators because there is less excitement when it doesn't start out as a clean slate even series. This! and another reason is that it would make the tournament run a bit smoother & faster If it really is a question of preference then it should be removed because of these reasons. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On November 08 2010 07:50 PROJECTILE wrote: You can argue both ways. Don't be an idiot (and presumptuous). It depends on what you value more as a standard for determining who is more deserving of moving on. Is it fair for painuser to be eliminated when he has a winning or even record against nony? You can make a case for both. What a bo3 double bracket values as a standard is a bo3. which mean a series. You have the right to lose ONE series throughout the tournament, this is the basis of a bo3 double bracket. You lose one, you're in LB, you lose two, you're out. Losing one serie and tying another 2-2 after winning it 2-1 getting you out is not normal. Losing two series and still being in is not normal. Having it depending on whether you play someone you already played or not, is not normal. Having to win less games in the grand final when you come from the loser bracket is not normal. The guy coming from the WB final (who has not lost any series) having the same advantage as the one meeting a random dude in the lb and being out after only one series is not normal. Should I continue ? The basic unit is one best of 3 series. The only time individual results into series should come into play are when there are group stages, for standings. You can not argue both ways if it can be unfair in one of those ways. If, as it is the case in this tournament, you count a bo3 as one series, then you might be 3-2 against someone, you STILL lost one series. (and are out since you already lost another one tossing you in LB) (one series must be absolutely incorrect grammatically speaking, but hey... it's late, forgive me :/) OHHH, fuck that, just count man... Being out of a tourney by losing 3-4 to one dude (1 fucking map gets you out in a double elimination tournament), and still being in when you get tossed in the LB, then lose again 2-1 (make it 2-2 after), and still being on the run. DOES IT SOUND NORMAL TO YOU ? If no, then consider using only single bo3 per round, and it will feel a lot simpler. | ||
|
sc2lime
Canada513 Posts
On November 08 2010 07:54 PROJECTILE wrote: Why shouldn't it? Why should painuser be eliminated by someone he has a winning record against in the very same tourney? From an entertainment aspect I would agree it seems kind of silly, because winning a really uphill series has a pretty low probability and makes the entire series anticlimactic, but there's a good argument for its fairness. Like he already said it IS fair (don't be stupid). But like most people have said, even though it is fair, it shouldn't be used in an RTS tournament like this. Plus, there is already a Extended Series in the Upper Bracket Finals and I think that is how it should only be utilized. | ||
|
vx70GTOJudgexv
United States3161 Posts
On November 08 2010 07:52 ZlaSHeR wrote: Nobody cares whether or not its fair becuse obviously everyone has the opportunity to be on both sides of it, fact is its a retarded rule that shouldn't be implemented in an RTS And the cut and dry angle is MLG has no plan of changing it any time soon. | ||
|
SonuvBob
Aiur21549 Posts
On November 08 2010 07:25 Ketara wrote: The problem with that is it doesn't differentiate between a 2-0 series and a 2-1 series, whereas the current system does. So it'd start 3-1 or 3-0 | ||
|
stangstang
Canada281 Posts
On November 08 2010 07:54 PROJECTILE wrote: Why shouldn't it? Why should painuser be eliminated by someone he has a winning record against in the very same tourney? From an entertainment aspect I would agree it seems kind of silly, because winning a really uphill series has a pretty low probability and makes the entire series anticlimactic, but there's a good argument for its fairness. Because thats how every tournament goes. it's not about win%'s and how consistent you are every game. It's about winning the games that matter. | ||
|
PROJECTILE
United States226 Posts
On November 08 2010 08:11 stangstang wrote: Because thats how every tournament goes. it's not about win%'s and how consistent you are every game. It's about winning the games that matter. So your argument is preserving the status quo? But why is the status quo the proper way? Most tournaments are a joke in determining the best players. Not to mention, as been stated before, MLG has used this format before. It's not entirely novel. | ||
|
PROJECTILE
United States226 Posts
On November 08 2010 08:06 Nouar wrote: What a bo3 double bracket values as a standard is a bo3. which mean a series. You have the right to lose ONE series throughout the tournament, this is the basis of a bo3 double bracket. You lose one, you're in LB, you lose two, you're out. Losing one serie and tying another 2-2 after winning it 2-1 getting you out is not normal. Losing two series and still being in is not normal. Having it depending on whether you play someone you already played or not, is not normal. Having to win less games in the grand final when you come from the loser bracket is not normal. The guy coming from the WB final (who has not lost any series) having the same advantage as the one meeting a random dude in the lb and being out after only one series is not normal. Should I continue ? The basic unit is one best of 3 series. The only time individual results into series should come into play are when there are group stages, for standings. You can not argue both ways if it can be unfair in one of those ways. If, as it is the case in this tournament, you count a bo3 as one series, then you might be 3-2 against someone, you STILL lost one series. (and are out since you already lost another one tossing you in LB) (one series must be absolutely incorrect grammatically speaking, but hey... it's late, forgive me :/) OHHH, fuck that, just count man... Being out of a tourney by losing 3-4 to one dude (1 fucking map gets you out in a double elimination tournament), and still being in when you get tossed in the LB, then lose again 2-1 (make it 2-2 after), and still being on the run. DOES IT SOUND NORMAL TO YOU ? If no, then consider using only single bo3 per round, and it will feel a lot simpler. Don't be so angry. You're not helping your argument. I understand what you're saying. It's not very complicated. The idea that the tourney is broken into "units" of BoX series is something you're assuming, not something that's necessarily true. Like I said, you can make an argument either way, but I don't agree with the idea that implicitly the "unit" of the tourney is a BoX series. It's whatever the organizers want it to be. I personally find it silly that you can be eliminated by someone when you have a winning record against them. | ||
|
Dantaro
United States69 Posts
| ||
|
Bearigator
United States233 Posts
Ex: Player 1 beats Player 2 in a best of 3 early in the tournament. They run back in to each other in the finals, it is now a best of 5. IF Player 2 wins the first best of 5, another is played, since now they each have 1 series win on each other. The last series is played out as normal. IF Player 1 wins the first best of 5, he wins the tournament outright. It was always the best system imo. I think they scrapped it because a lot of people didn't understand how it worked, it wasn't very viewer friendly. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On November 08 2010 08:38 Dantaro wrote: Its fine. If you lose you are penalized. And with this rule you are penalized heavily which is a good thing. If a player is truly the best, he will win even with this rule. Players have already clawed back to win extended series when down 2-0/2-1. I say keep it. The other one might not be penalized at all, though, since he might not meet the guy who tossed him down in the LB. It can, or can not happen, it all depends on the round you're going down in the LB, since they switch side of the brackets every time. This is being "lucky" or not. And luck in the drawings should have no part in a tournament. This is bothering me. If you remove this in the LB, there is no more luck involved. You have a bo3 every time, you win, good, you lose, you're out. You're already penalized in the first place for losing that first match by simply going to LB and having to claw your way back and play twice as many bo3. @ PROJECTILE : There is a reason they play bo3 in WB and LB, that's cause they view it as the "unit", if they randomly change the "unit of win" depending on who you meet, I find that not logical and not fair to everyone, since everyone doesn't have the same chance/same number of wins to go through to the next round. | ||
| ||
