|
I think Extended Series could be kept, but tweaked a bit to make it less stacked.
Something like giving the Loser Bracket's player map pick for the games he's disadvantaged (even if he wins).
Like, if Player L has a 2-game extended series disadvantage against Player W, he gets map pick for the first game. Regardless of if he wins or loses that game, he gets map pick for the second game as well.
I think that helps even out the excruciating odds in a flat series from behind, while still supporting the idea that if the Winner's Bracket player wins, he won on the Loser's maps and deserved the series. If the Loser's Player can win on his maps against the Winner's, then that gives you a fairer square one.
|
On March 26 2012 15:20 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 14:59 Aemilia wrote: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".
Why not? We'd get better finals and it worked fine in MSL's.
|
I definitely think it's fair; not only are both players aware of it, but I also remembered someone made a program that ran a tournament simulation a number of times. The conclusion was that the extended series rule made the better players statistically more likely to finish a the top. Even with this mind I don't approve of the rule since it makes for a worse viewing experience in my opinion.
|
double elimination is awesome. extended series is not. if the LB finalist beats the WB finalist, just reset the series.
i do think its fair however, mainly for the reason listed in the first reply (having a 3-2 record against your opponent overall but still being knocked out by said opponent). from a spectator point of view though, it just makes lackluster finals most of the time (granted not all time).
|
On March 26 2012 15:47 Oiseaux wrote:
double elimination is awesome. extended series is not. if the LB finalist beats the WB finalist, just reset the series.
I don't see what is wrong with this.
If you want to punish people a second time (in addition to them being placed lower in the tournament) then why not have the previous loser win 2 bo3s, while the previous winner only has to win one.
Currently the players play a series, and whoever wins the first bo3 (to more easily illustrate the point, lets say it was a 2-0 win) is then at a drastic advantage... one that surpasses having to win 2 bo3's (out of 3). That doesn't seem fair to me.
Now when the players meet up once again, instead of the initial loser having to win 4 games across two series, and the winner having to win 2 within on series (which is relevant as players treat specific games in series differently) they merely have to win those 2 across all of the games... which is obviously much easier.
So why put such an emphasis on the first match, when that player already has the advantage of being placed higher in the brackets?
|
2228 Posts
On March 26 2012 15:34 Aemilia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 15:20 Fubi wrote:On March 26 2012 14:59 Aemilia wrote: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". Why not? We'd get better finals and it worked fine in MSL's.
Cuz think about it, DRG lost once, but has the opportunity to make up that loss by playing someone else. So then MKP loses once, and it's over? Where is his opportunity to play against someone else? There HAS to be some sort of advantage for the playing coming from the Winner's finals, that is the whole point of Double Elimination. We're just saying that extended series is not the way to do it, and definitely shouldn't apply to the rest of the brackets.
|
The main problem with the extended series is not that it punishes the loser too hard but it can actually give the loser if they never played the winner a advantage if the loser player wins the first set over the winners player. A PLAYER COMING FROM LOSERS SHOULD AT MOST RESET HIS DISADVANTAGE NOT GAIN AN ADVANTAGE.
Also, to the person who quoted MSL. That's not what they did early back then. They gave the person coming from winners start one set ahead in the Bo5. And they abandoned the format after a couple of seasons cause it sucked. Single-elimination was way more epic and easier for viewers to follow and create story-lines with.
|
It seems pretty unexciting to have 3 of the final 4 series played at MLG as extended series.
I think if they don't start looking into other options soon they'll run the risk of losing part of their fan base
|
It's their tournament, therefor their rules ...
Like it or not, it's there.
I personally don't care about it at all.
|
The  HuK versus Socke situation was horrible and unfair not only to Socke but also to the other competitors who didn't have the advantage HuK had simply because he played someone he had played before. This needs to change for the next MLG but I am sure they will work on the format. MLG has been quick to respond to constructive criticism.
|
On March 26 2012 09:38 RmoteCntrld wrote:
Heres the problem i see with extended series:
Player A beats Player B
Player B drops to lower bracket
Player A loses to Player C
Player A drops to lower bracket
Player A faces Player B again
Player A gets an extra 2 games to survive in the tourny.
It completely undermines the theory of double elim if some players are theoretically getting a 3rd chance to advance.
Very well outlined!
|
On March 26 2012 09:38 RmoteCntrld wrote:
Heres the problem i see with extended series:
Player A beats Player B
Player B drops to lower bracket
Player A loses to Player C
Player A drops to lower bracket
Player A faces Player B again
Player A gets an extra 2 games to survive in the tourny.
It completely undermines the theory of double elim if some players are theoretically getting a 3rd chance to advance.
I fully agree.
Make it a true double elimination (if WB finalist loses to LB finalist they reset and play a "real" final). Doesn't matter if Player A dropped to LB later in the tournament, Player B already had to work harder (win more games) to get the rematch with Player A.
Previous results should only matter in how they got to their position on the bracket, not how easy it is to advance.
|
On March 26 2012 20:11 JOJOsc2news wrote:The HuK versus Socke situation was horrible and unfair not only to Socke but also to the other competitors who didn't have the advantage HuK had simply because he played someone he had played before. This needs to change for the next MLG but I am sure they will work on the format. MLG has been quick to respond to constructive criticism.
You must be new to sc2.
MLGs unique extended series has been harshly critisized for nearly 2 years now, as it is blatantly obvious what kind of nonsense it is.
MLG has not acted on it in the past, so I dont see why they should do it now.
|
To me, its not so much about being fair or not, its about extended series creating uninteresting games. Its terrible for the viewer when you you're almost certain the result before games have been played. Especially the final, which is supposed to be the climax of a tourny. And then someone starts 2-0 in the final... -_-
|
While I think it's good to have advantages for the winner, it is stupid to give him the double advantage of having a better seed and of having the lead in the series.
|
There is simply no point to this rule. Period.
|
Seriously, get rid of it already.
|
I just don't understand why they're so keen on keeping it. It feels so stupid that we're still talking about this.
I hope that it's not just some kind of prestige play à la "it's our tournament, we don't give in and change the rules!"
|
Russian Federation1849 Posts
On March 26 2012 15:54 Chicane wrote:
So why put such an emphasis on the first match, when that player already has the advantage of being placed higher in the brackets?
A hundred times this.
|
I think that perhaps instead of getting fully rid of it they could nerf it.
For instance whatever advantage number of games (that is, NET wins against his opponents in maps wins for the previous match) could be for divided by 2, and should that fall to < 1 just let it be 0 -> No advantage.
At least its good to have bo9 for the finals at MLG for instance, since obviously the more matches you play, the greater probability of crowning the right winner...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
