|
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.
Your forgetting that the winning player has also lost to another player to be in loser bracket while the other player has not, the point of double elimination is you can lose 2 times (without groups) and be out but with extended series the player who won the first match can lost 2 bo3 and not be out and it makes it unfair to all others in tournament as well. The point of a tournament is to try to find the best overall player not the best between 2 players.
|
On March 26 2012 21:46 RotterdamBlt wrote:
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.
Someone who wins all of their sets in the Winners Bracket goes directly to the grand finals. They never get knocked to losers bracket. So I think what Geiko wrote is correct
On March 26 2012 21:27 Geiko wrote: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 
|
The loser has to fight his way through anyways, especially if its from group play or so, making it even harder.
|
On March 26 2012 15:58 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 15:34 Aemilia wrote: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.
His advantage is he has to play less games and goes straight into the finals. He doesn't need another advantage.
|
It creates no doubt on a standings promotion in my opinion. Knocking down a player who won more games against YOU is not fair. The solution is to win.
|
On March 26 2012 22:22 Thenerf wrote:
It creates no doubt on a standings promotion in my opinion. Knocking down a player who won more games against YOU is not fair. The solution is to win.
But he won against me with another occasion, when fighting for pool play standings. It's like you now want to keep the records between MLG events so when DRG meets MKP again he will play from 2-5. Different goals different matches. Results don't transfer.
|
Why don't we just keep a running grand total of all games two people have ever played against each other since the dawn of time and just consider it all a gigantic extended series?
I'm obviously being facetious but brackets exist for a reason. Once a set is played, a 'winner' and 'loser' are chosen and awarded/punished by subsequent bracket placement. I don't see how meeting up of the same two players can in any way shape or form be considered a continuation of the same series. There has been a considerable amount of time and numerous matches played by both since their previous meeting, not to mention the mental component that comes with playing against someone who beat you a short time ago all working against the 'losing' player.
There were 4 games in the losers and winners championship brackets this weekend which ended as: Huk 4, Socke 1; Heart 4, Huk 2; DRG 4, Heart 1; MKP 5 DRG 2. In no circumstance did the 'loser' come back over their opponent, regardless of extended series; the second matches were decided by a score of 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, and 3-1 respectively. Though a small sample to consider, is appears that even in the absence of the 'extended series' rule, the original winner would have been able to achieve victory a second time. The only thing extended series did for us this weekend was cut short the Grand Final by at least 2 games.
|
The winner of the upper bracket obviously deserves an advantage if you want to run a dual elimination tournament. The usual extended series when people meet again in the lower bracket are however silly.
Here you actually have an advantage if you met and lost to the upper bracket winner like drg only starting 1-2 down (I suppose the default is 0-2, at least it used to be this way I'm describing. A normal double elim tourney would have 2 bo3's in the finals with the upper bracket needing 1 won while the lower 2, it used to be that way in mlg but if you had met and lost to the winner before you actually were better off than if you hadn't). However in cases where the previous winner isn't supposed to have an advantage (he also got knocked down, both of you have lost a bo3 or some pool shenanigans) It has a negative effect.
It's "fair" but so would changing the tournament so that you only play 1 game per series and coinflip for the remaining two. Luck starts playing an unnecessarily big role.
|
Almost everyone but the MLG officials seem to agree that the Extended Series rule is stupid. Unfortuantely this is nothing new.
|
On March 26 2012 22:10 KillAudio wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 20:49 sereniity wrote: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.
No he is correct. what he is referring to is say in the finals the lower bracket winner had been HUK had never faced the winner bracket finalist (MKP). (I will do this with the old bo3 system since since it is easier to show that way) if they played the final game and huk wins the first Bo3 2-0, they have to play a second Bo3, but now in this case Huk has the advantage as now it would be a Bo7 with huk starting 2-0 over MKP instead of just playing another Bo3.
This means that the most exciting (in that there is the greatest chance for an upset) finals is one where the 2 players have not faced yet. This means the loser bracket winner is not from the winner bracket finalist's group and was not the winner of any of the groups.
|
The rule is stupid, as someone else said it's just double punishment for the guy who lost. He already went to the loser's bracket and played more games for losing, he doesn't need even more of a handicap.
Also, if what Geiko said is true than this really is one rule of majorleague stupidity proportions. Can you imagine that? The player coming from Loser's bracket starts with an advantage vs the one who came from the Winner's bracket. Wow, don't know whether that's sad or funny... :D
|
This isn't so much about what's fair or unfair, but about what's fair or exciting.
In regard to fairness, the finalist from the upper bracket deserves a free shot just like everybody else, and therefore he should start with some sort of advantage in the finals. I personally like the format of double elimination where they might go for a second set of games (with each set starting unbiased) better since I feel that it doesn't encourage the favored player (as much) to go for high-risk high-reward strategies.
In regard to excitement, giving the player from the upper bracket an advantage is counterproductive because - at least if they played each other before - he has already proven to be capable of eliminating his opponent and thus should be expected to come out on top anyway. That's why, in any matchup, the loser and not the winner gets to pick the next map... to make it more exciting.
|
On March 26 2012 22:38 Poffel wrote:
This isn't so much about what's fair or unfair, but about what's fair or exciting.
In regard to fairness, the finalist from the upper bracket deserves a free shot just like everybody else, and therefore he should start with some sort of advantage in the finals. I personally like the format of double elimination where they might go for a second set of games (with each set starting unbiased) better since I feel that it doesn't encourage the favored player (as much) to go for high-risk high-reward strategies.
In regard to excitement, giving the player from the upper bracket an advantage is counterproductive because - at least if they played each other before - he has already proven to be capable of eliminating his opponent and thus should be expected to come out on top anyway. That's why, in any matchup, the loser and not the winner gets to pick the next map... to make it more exciting.
This x 1000. I think you can easily make the case for extended series and you can put out arguments for their fairness. But when your audience seriously hates them this much, and it takes away from possible excitement of the tournament, I would say it is more than reasonable to get rid of it. The tournament would improve. The players don't want it. The fans don't want it. Some MLG officials probably don't want it (i.e. JP). Casters don't want it. Regardless of the fairness factor, I think you ought to say "hey well this thing, it is right to do in tournaments and it is fair, but fuck it is really ruining some of the suspense from the finals. Maybe we should get rid of it since NO ONE seems to want it... even the people that do defend it are doing it out of being a devil's advocate rather than truly being for 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? 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.
+ Show Spoiler [Hypothetical situation 1 incoming:] +
Say Heart started in the open bracket and 2-0'd every player he played against. He would play 6 bo3's with a 12-0 record.
Now he's in pool play and 2-0's everyone he plays in 5 more sets for a total of 11 bo3's with a a 22-0 record. Continue to the Winner's Championship bracket and if he goes 2-0 in those remaining 2 sets he has played 13 bo3's with a 26-0 record before landing in the finals.
Situation 1: 13 bo3's with a 26-0 record
+ Show Spoiler [Hypothetical situation 2 incoming:] +
If Heart lost first round 0-2 for whatever reason and then went 2-0 throughout the loser bracket he would have played 9 (possibly 10), bo3's with a 16-2 record.
Then he continues to the Loser's Championship bracket where he will play 10 more matches going 2-0 in all of them for 19 bo3's at 36-2.
Situation 2: 19 bo3's with a 36-2 record
The loser will play roughly 50% more matches without even factoring in the extra disadvantage from a possible extended series.
If we look at normal double elimination tournament rules the winner's bracket player has the opportunity to lose his first bo5 and then he will be entered in a 2nd bo5 where he still has a chance to win a bo5. The loser's bracket player is out of the tournament if he loses one of the bo5's. This is an acceptable advantage for the winner because a double elimination format means everyone has the chance to lose one match. The winner's bracket player reserves that right to lose that one match all the way to the finals while still having to win less games to get there.
The only situation when an extended series makes sense is in the finals. A 2-0 player only has to win 3 games while a 0-2 player has to win 5 to win the tournament.
If the finals is not an extended series the winner's bracket player has to win a best of 5 to win the tournament. If the winner's bracket player loses the initial best of 5 the winner's bracket player now has to continue a best of 9 with the losers bracket player, maintaining no previous bracket advantage and possibly starting 0-3 in a best of 9. (Depending on the order of games won in a finals match the winner's bracket player may have to play a best of 9 with no game advantage.)+ Show Spoiler [source] +http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/competitions/30#event_85_competition-format4. If the Players scheduled to play each other in the Finals have not yet played against each other in the Event, an initial Best of 5 Games Match must be played. If the Player who came from the Winners Bracket wins the initial Match, they will win the Event. If the Player who came from the Losers Bracket wins the initial Match, the Match will expand to a Best of 9, include the initial Match, and pick up where that Match left off. For example, if the Losers Bracket Player beat the Winners Bracket Player 3 Games to 0 in the initial Match, the Best of 9 will resume with Game 4 and the Losers Bracket Player leading 3 Games to 0.
+ Show Spoiler [Another question related to extended s…] +
MLG invites players based on previous MLG experience. Why don't series from previous MLG events carry over to future MLG events? Why didn't the 4-2 finals carry over to extend to a bo13 where MKP was up 4-2 in this MLG's finals?
Does an issue arise because the tournaments are a month apart and players could change within that time? In current MLG's a player could lose day 1 but has the chance to play the same person two days later in which an extended series occurs. If MLG was weekly would that be a short enough time frame for extended series to persist?
What about tournaments looking to copy the extended series format? Should daily single elimination tournaments (Playhem, z33k) start using extended series throughout each tournament indefinitely or only for a week or even 3 days(matching MLG)? What if these daily tournaments copied the extended series format but did not retain previous extended series throughout their future daily tournaments? If P1 plays P2 in the first match of a tournament going 2-0 and has an extended series finishing at 4-0 in the finals, why wouldn't P1 retain his 4-0 lead in the next day's tournament?
|
I think this is a much more difficult argument to have than most people realize. It comes down to a difference in tournament philosophies.
If you think the goal of a tournament is to determine the best player (at the time of the tournament), I don't see how you could possibly argue against extended series. With this thinking, it should never be possible to go forward with more losses, which is possible without extended series. If you think a tournament is rather a series of contests to be conquered, extended series seem terribly unfair.
Clearly, MLG has the former philosophy. Keep that in mind.
|
On March 27 2012 00:44 SlapMySalami wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 20:50 Danglars wrote: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. + Show Spoiler [Hypothetical situation 1 incoming +
Say Heart started in the open bracket and 2-0'd every player he played against. He would play 6 bo3's with a 12-0 record.
Now he's in pool play and 2-0's everyone he plays in 5 more sets for a total of 11 bo3's with a a 22-0 record. Continue to the Winner's Championship bracket and if he goes 2-0 in those remaining 2 sets he has played 13 bo3's with a 26-0 record before landing in the finals.
If Heart lost first round 0-2 for whatever reason and then went 2-0 throughout the loser bracket he would have played 9 (possibly 10), bo3's with a 16-2 record.
Then he continues to the Loser's Championship bracket where he will play 10 more matches going 2-0 in all of them for 19 bo3's at 36-2.
The loser will play roughly 50% more matches without even factoring in the extra disadvantage from a possible extended series. If we look at normal double elimination tournament rules the winner's bracket player has the opportunity to lose his first bo5 and then he will be entered in a 2nd bo5 where he still has a chance to win a bo5. The loser's bracket player is out of the tournament if he loses one of the bo5's. This is an acceptable advantage for the winner because a double elimination format means everyone has the chance to lose one match. The winner's bracket player reserves that right to lose that one match all the way to the finals while still having to win less games to get there.The only situation when an extended series makes sense is in the finals. A 2-0 player only has to win 3 games while a 0-2 player has to win 5 to win the tournament. If the finals is not an extended series the winner's bracket player has to win a best of 5 to win the tournament. If the winner's bracket player loses the initial best of 5 the winner's bracket player now has to continue a best of 9 with the losers bracket player, maintaining no previous bracket advantage and possibly starting 0-3 in a best of 9. (Depending on the order of games won in a finals match the winner's bracket player may have to play a best of 9 with no game advantage.)+ Show Spoiler [source] +http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/competitions/30#event_85_competition-format4. If the Players scheduled to play each other in the Finals have not yet played against each other in the Event, an initial Best of 5 Games Match must be played. If the Player who came from the Winners Bracket wins the initial Match, they will win the Event. If the Player who came from the Losers Bracket wins the initial Match, the Match will expand to a Best of 9, include the initial Match, and pick up where that Match left off. For example, if the Losers Bracket Player beat the Winners Bracket Player 3 Games to 0 in the initial Match, the Best of 9 will resume with Game 4 and the Losers Bracket Player leading 3 Games to 0.
MLG invites players based on previous MLG experience. Why don't series from previous MLG events carry over to future MLG events? Why didn't the 4-2 finals carry over to extend to a bo13 where MKP was up 4-2 in this MLG's finals?
Does an issue arise because the tournaments are a month apart and players could change within that time? In current MLG's a player could lose day 1 but has the chance to play the same person two days later in which an extended series occurs. If MLG was weekly would that be a short enough time frame for extended series to persist?
What about tournaments looking to copy the extended series format? Should daily single elimination tournaments (Playhem, z33k) start using extended series throughout each tournament indefinitely or only for a week or even 3 days(matching MLG)? What if these daily tournaments copied the extended series format but did not retain previous extended series throughout their future daily tournaments? If P1 plays P2 in the first match of a tournament going 2-0 and has an extended series finishing at 4-0 in the finals, why wouldn't P1 retain his 4-0 lead in the next day's tournament?
Since you seem to have read the rules in detail, can you answer my question previously posted ?
It was: can someone coming from the loser bracket start with an advantage over someone coming from the winner bracket in the final ?
|
From a viewer point extended series kills tension. This MLG there would have been room for an upset in both Socke vs Huk and Heart vs DRG. But as both matches were extended series it was clear who would win as it simply would be insane to think that Socke could win 4-1 or 3-1 in the case of Heart. It`s not only a lack of tension on the viewer`s side though but it is also clear that it affects the mindset of those players that start from behind.
In my opinion extended series works as a mechanism of protectionism as it works in favour of those who do well in the first day of pool play. The drawback of it is that in conjunction with pool seedings etc. it tends to lead to a very stagnant field of players that place high.
|
Usually, I dont even bother to watch day 3 of MLG, because of the extended series. I understand the concept and what is it trying to archieve, but I dont really this realization is good. Because of the extended series, the more important match is played, the more predictable and uninteresting it is
|
On March 26 2012 21:27 Geiko wrote: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
This is such an excellent question. I cannot think of a reason why in this case the LB-winner would not get a lead above the WB-winner heading to the grand finals. It would be quite absurd though.
|
face it everything that affects the brackets and is invented by mlg is horrible....
extended series, WORST SYSTEM EVER (not that bad anymore but still kinda ridiculous that if you lose 1 game in open bracket you have to potetially play like 10 rounds more than if you win your pool and that all in 1 day...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
