|
On March 26 2012 16:09 RaiKageRyu wrote:
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.
This has to be the biggest mindfuck I've ever read  ... I still don't understand what it says!
|
On March 26 2012 20:34 theBALLS wrote:
There is simply no point to this rule. Period.
Does the loser simply deserve the right to challenge the winner again if he defeats inferior competition?
Did the first match get erased and you gotta repeat it once again, but the SECOND time it really DOES count? We're 1-1 (In BoX sets), wait you win, wtf? I win a set, you win a set, you take the whole tournament?
There's a point to it. The question remains whether the fight too heavily favors the player that first won and the new challenge has no real shot at overturning it.
|
On March 26 2012 20:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 20:34 theBALLS wrote:
There is simply no point to this rule. Period. Does the loser simply deserve the right to challenge the winner again if he defeats inferior competition? Did the first match get erased and you gotta repeat it once again, but the SECOND time it really DOES count? We're 1-1 (In BoX sets), wait you win, wtf? There's a point to it. The question remains whether the fight too heavily favors the player that first won and the new challenger has no real shot at overturning it.
This... Even though I don't like extended series too much this is true.
|
I personally don't like the rule. I don't watch other major sports leagues anymore, but it feels like... the Patriots beat the giants twice in the regular season so this Super Bowl will only be played till halftime.
Perhaps have extended series, but the rule ends in the RO8. Full series at the end. No teeter-totter matchups.
|
On March 26 2012 20:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 20:34 theBALLS wrote:
There is simply no point to this rule. Period. Does the loser simply deserve the right to challenge the winner again if he defeats inferior competition? Did the first match get erased and you gotta repeat it once again, but the SECOND time it really DOES count? We're 1-1 (In BoX sets), wait you win, wtf? There's a point to it. The question remains whether the fight too heavily favors the player that first won and the new challenger has no real shot at overturning it.
I think you're confused: the loser simply gets the right to move on in the tourney by winning. The winner gets to move on as well. Each player gets to lose once; the 2nd time you lose, you're out of the tournament.
So, in the case of grand final, the Loser's finalist earned his right to be at that spot by winning every set since his first lost; the same for the Winner's finalist, he earned that spot by winning every set thus far: only difference is the Winner's finalist haven't lost yet. Therefore, the Winner's finalist gets to lose twice before he's out, while the Loser's finalist can only lose one more, as that would be his 2nd lost. Whoever is the last person to lose twice wins the whole tournament: that is how double elimination should work in the first place. Therefore, as the other posted you quoted have said, there is simply no point to extended series.
|
On March 26 2012 20:49 sereniity wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:09 RaiKageRyu wrote:
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. This has to be the biggest mindfuck I've ever read ... I still don't understand what it says!
Well it's suboptimally phrased and a little bit wrong. Essentially; If the player from the winners bracket meets a player that he has never faced before in the finals, there isn't really much of an advantage for the player from the winner's bracket.
IMO the whole system is stupid, there is a reason no normal sport uses loser's bracket (at the highest level), if you are out you are out. It's not as if there isn't enough tournaments that a "more deserving better player" has the chance to come back and win something later.
|
For example, GOMtv Ro32 Code S can have recurring matches as well, extended series, no, problem, no.
It happens when:
+ Show Spoiler +
A > B
C > D
A > C
B > D
C plays D again, one match decides all.
Edit:
The way I see it by the way is that double elimination format should give the best players a little bit more chance to reach a high classification. Ideally you want the top 4 or so to really represent the best players. More games (i.e. double elimination) will ensure the top players have more chance to get to the latest stage of the tourney. As it decreases some of the randomness.
Imho, double elimination should be active to ro4, without extended series along the way. Ro4 starts with 2 semifinals (obviously), where both semifinals contain someone from winners and someone from losers bracket.
|
On March 26 2012 20:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 20:34 theBALLS wrote:
There is simply no point to this rule. Period. Does the loser simply deserve the right to challenge the winner again if he defeats inferior competition? Did the first match get erased and you gotta repeat it once again, but the SECOND time it really DOES count? We're 1-1 (In BoX sets), wait you win, wtf? I win a set, you win a set, you take the whole tournament? There's a point to it. The question remains whether the fight too heavily favors the player that first won and the new challenge has no real shot at overturning it.
I don't see the problem. Double elimination gives you a lifeline. If you lost your lifeline to another player, that is your problem. Why should you get an advantage over someone who also lost his lifeline and the player just happened to be you?
|
9071 Posts
what if there is no extended series rule but they give the winner the choice of first and last map (if it gets to final game)
|
On March 26 2012 20:57 HopLight wrote:
IMO the whole system is stupid, there is a reason no normal sport uses loser's bracket (at the highest level), if you are out you are out. It's not as if there isn't enough tournaments that a "more deserving better player" has the chance to come back and win something later.
Beachvolleybal is using it for one.
|
On March 26 2012 21:03 disciple wrote:
what if there is no extended series rule but they give the winner the choice of first and last map (if it gets to final game)
This combined with the potential reuse of maps in a bo9 (like BW in bo5 finals) would be a really good way to solve the grand finals.
For the remaining extended series, I think those should just be removed.
|
On March 26 2012 21:03 disciple wrote:
what if there is no extended series rule but they give the winner the choice of first and last map (if it gets to final game)
There should be no advantage for anyone if they were to meet again. The first time they met, the winner already got his advantage by being able to keep his one lifeline and advancing, while the loser had to use up his only lifeline and falling to the loser's bracket (therefore having to play extra game). The fact they are meeting again means that the winner used up his lifeline against someone else, while the loser won all his matches since then. The fact that they are at the exact same position in the bracket means that they should be exactly equal.
Of course, exception is for the grand final, because the winner hasn't used up his lifeline yet, therefore, in order for the loser to win, he has to beat the winner once to make him use it up.
|
Just a quick question, let's say player A is in the same pool as player B.
Player A finishes 1st in his group but loses to player B (he goes 4-1).
Player A then goes on to win all his matches and goes to the final from the winners bracket.
Player B then goes on to win all his matches and goes to the final from the loser bracket.
With extended series, is player B still favorite to win the final even though he's coming from the loser bracket ?
These rules are confusing me 
|
Well, in this case he would be down a series. Also, even if he "wins" the series, player A would get a second chance as the tournament is double elimination.
Edit: Err, misread. Then yeah, player B would start with the advantage though I'm not sure how the double elimination would play through.
|
I like the extended series rule. Winning against somebody before and not getting an advantage for it seems highly unfair to the winner of the first series.
I remember a small tournament (Verizon Open) where Idra defeated Sen 2-0 in the winner bracket final just to lose to him 3-0 in the Grand Final. No extended series, no double Bo3. Not fair at all.
|
On March 26 2012 20:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 20:34 theBALLS wrote:
There is simply no point to this rule. Period. Does the loser simply deserve the right to challenge the winner again if he defeats inferior competition? Did the first match get erased and you gotta repeat it once again, but the SECOND time it really DOES count? We're 1-1 (In BoX sets), wait you win, wtf? I win a set, you win a set, you take the whole tournament? There's a point to it. The question remains whether the fight too heavily favors the player that first won and the new challenge has no real shot at overturning it.
Making the loser play more matches is the punishment while the winner rests. "Inferior players" doesn't mean gold league members but they mean another great challenge. You make it sound like a free second chance when it's not. The group play has at stake placement in pool play. Pool play has in stake winning the tournamet. Two different targets.
|
On March 26 2012 21:47 Baio wrote:
I like the extended series rule. Winning against somebody before and not getting an advantage for it seems highly unfair to the winner of the first series.
I remember a small tournament (Verizon Open) where Idra defeated Sen 2-0 in the winner bracket final just to lose to him 3-0 in the Grand Final. No extended series, no double Bo3. Not fair at all.
Yeah, but then double bo3 (or bo5 or whatever) is the better choice.
|
On March 26 2012 20:49 sereniity wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 16:09 RaiKageRyu wrote:
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. This has to be the biggest mindfuck I've ever read ... I still don't understand what it says!
Rofl me too. I don't if he's trolling or what.
|
It's nothing more than double punishment. You had to go to the losers bracket and play way more games to get back in the first place after your loss.
|
not sure about the extended series, but the dude that has never lost obviously needs some advantage, or remove double elim altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
