On March 27 2012 02:43 MarcH wrote: For me the biggest issue with Extended series is that it creates uninteresting matches and these matches tend to all come towards the end of the competition makes this even worse.
Huk v Heart, Heart v DRG and DRG v MKP were all extended series and were also the final 3 games of the tournament and they were all less intense and less interesting because of extended series. You would think that any situation that potentially leads to less interesting Matches in an MLG tournament would be quickly removed but that's not the case with this one which is really rather confusing.
I would be fine with MLG reverting to standard double elimination but it should be noted that even that can lead to less interesting matches, particularly in a final where the player from the winner's bracket is allowed to lose two sets but only has to win one, but the player from the loser's bracket has to win 2 sets and if they lose one they're out.
On March 27 2012 02:53 Catatonic wrote: I honestly don't see what is the issue here :l If someone beats someone then meets them again they should have an advantage they already proved they can beat them unlike the other person. Its only fair since the other player has proved nothing.
He already has an advantage, he moves on in the winners bracket... When they meet again both lost once, why should one have an adavantage jsut because he happense to luckily meet the player he already beat? Also should MKP be in the finals of every MLG by default because he already proved he belongs their? You have to prove yourself every match, not once a tournament.
I think people's biggest complaint in the extended series is that the person who comes into the game as the previous loser has already suffered the punishment of playing out the rest of their games with the possibility of getting eliminated from the tournament with a single loss, where as the winning player has generally already had to play less matches as a reward for not losing a series in the bracket.
Why not just make it a true double elimination tournament instead of this hybrid system that is clearly unpopular? The finals would be a best of five. If the winner loses the first best of five, he gets the advantage of having a second best of five, that starts from scratch. If he wins that first best of five, he wins the tournament. In this way, essentially the finals players play 3 BoX matches vs eachother. Whoever is the first to win two of those series is the champion. (except in rare cases where the two players never meet before the finals, which still gives a clear advantage to the winner bracket in that he only needs to win one Bo5 rather than two.)
On March 27 2012 02:53 Catatonic wrote: I honestly don't see what is the issue here :l If someone beats someone then meets them again they should have an advantage they already proved they can beat them unlike the other person. Its only fair since the other player has proved nothing.
He already has an advantage, he moves on in the winners bracket... When they meet again both lost once, why should one have an adavantage jsut because he happense to luckily meet the player he already beat? Also should MKP be in the finals of every MLG by default because he already proved he belongs their? You have to prove yourself every match, not once a tournament.
You throw a bunch of stuff together but it doesn't really stick. Your MKP analogy makes no sense, it's nothing close to the Extended Series rule.
The rule is present to prevent a player from advancing over an opponent who has performed better than them in the tournament, its that simple. Beating players in the loser's bracket does not count as an equatable punishment because those players are supposed to be inferior anyways. You can disagree with the Extended series but your reasoning doesn't make sense.
If you have to prove yourself every match then say I win 2-0 once, you win 2-1 the next time, we both proved ourselves in one match each and I have the better overall record. Why is proving yourself later in the tournament(to a lesser degree since it's 2-1) arbitrarily more worthwhile than someone who proved themselves earlier on?
On March 27 2012 01:38 Chill wrote: We were imagining a scenario where someone beats someone else in pool play and then bumps into them in the bracket. But I don't know if pool results count towards extended series.
I didn't think they did, but it appears they do. My mistake.
The rule is fair but it ruins the show! A lot of results can be predicted before the series even start; having one of the players begin with a 2-0 advantage makes this even worse.
On March 27 2012 02:53 Catatonic wrote: I honestly don't see what is the issue here :l If someone beats someone then meets them again they should have an advantage they already proved they can beat them unlike the other person. Its only fair since the other player has proved nothing.
He already has an advantage, he moves on in the winners bracket... When they meet again both lost once, why should one have an adavantage jsut because he happense to luckily meet the player he already beat? Also should MKP be in the finals of every MLG by default because he already proved he belongs their? You have to prove yourself every match, not once a tournament.
You throw a bunch of stuff together but it doesn't really stick. Your MKP analogy makes no sense, it's nothing close to the Extended Series rule.
The rule is present to prevent a player from advancing over an opponent who has performed better than them in the tournament, its that simple. Beating players in the loser's bracket does not count as an equatable punishment because those players are supposed to be inferior anyways. You can disagree with the Extended series but your reasoning doesn't make sense.
If you have to prove yourself every match then say I win 2-0 once, you win 2-1 the next time, we both proved ourselves in one match each and I have the better overall record. Why is proving yourself later in the tournament(to a lesser degree since it's 2-1) arbitrarily more worthwhile than someone who proved themselves earlier on?
Nope, actually your reasoning doesn't make sense but if you don't see that I won't bother argueing with you, get back to me when you understand it.
Haha, just to say something like "The rule is present to prevent a player from advancing over an opponent who has performed better than them in the tournament, its that simple." is simply ridiculous. Why do you think they meet again in the losers bracket, because one performened better? Yeah right... But enough, at least one guy shares the same excitement for the rule as the mlg staff.
Edit: Maybe you should think about why afaik no sport in the world ("real" or esports) does this besides mlg.
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.
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.
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] +
4. 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 ?
The loser cant start with an advantage nope.
The loser CAN nullify any advantage the finalist once had if he wins the first set (2 games I think) and then the loser would be at an advantage of 2-0 in a bo9 if they haven't met in the tournament before.
edit: Woops if you look at FXOz he beat Parting and then went to loser bracket. Say Parting went to finals FXOz should start 2-1 on Parting LOL
On March 27 2012 02:53 Catatonic wrote: I honestly don't see what is the issue here :l If someone beats someone then meets them again they should have an advantage they already proved they can beat them unlike the other person. Its only fair since the other player has proved nothing.
He already has an advantage, he moves on in the winners bracket... When they meet again both lost once, why should one have an adavantage jsut because he happense to luckily meet the player he already beat? Also should MKP be in the finals of every MLG by default because he already proved he belongs their? You have to prove yourself every match, not once a tournament.
You throw a bunch of stuff together but it doesn't really stick. Your MKP analogy makes no sense, it's nothing close to the Extended Series rule.
The rule is present to prevent a player from advancing over an opponent who has performed better than them in the tournament, its that simple. Beating players in the loser's bracket does not count as an equatable punishment because those players are supposed to be inferior anyways. You can disagree with the Extended series but your reasoning doesn't make sense.
If you have to prove yourself every match then say I win 2-0 once, you win 2-1 the next time, we both proved ourselves in one match each and I have the better overall record. Why is proving yourself later in the tournament(to a lesser degree since it's 2-1) arbitrarily more worthwhile than someone who proved themselves earlier on?
Nope, actually your reasoning doesn't make sense but if you don't see that I won't bother argueing with you, get back to me when you understand it.
Haha, just to say something like "The rule is present to prevent a player from advancing over an opponent who has performed better than them in the tournament, its that simple." is simply ridiculous. Why do you think they meet again in the losers bracket, because one performened better? Yeah right... But enough, at least one guy shares the same excitement for the rule as the mlg staff.
Edit: Maybe you should think about why afaik no sport in the world ("real" or esports) does this besides mlg.
I think to clarify the previous post. An example would be Genius vs MKP in Ro32 I think in the last GSL. MKP 2-0'd Genius in the first set. Then they met again in the last set. Genius advanced going 2-1 against MKP. If looking at the aggregated results, MKP has a record of 3-2 against Genius. However Genius advanced because Genius won when the last set. The reasoning behind the extended series rule is to allow the player who performed better in an aggregating setting to advance.
I'm not defending for this rule or trying to contribute to any hate, but I'm just trying to shed a different point of view. MLG is just trying to come up with its own set of rules so it doesn't seem like its another repeat of GSL, Dreamhack or any other tournment.
On March 27 2012 02:53 Catatonic wrote: I honestly don't see what is the issue here :l If someone beats someone then meets them again they should have an advantage they already proved they can beat them unlike the other person. Its only fair since the other player has proved nothing.
He already has an advantage, he moves on in the winners bracket... When they meet again both lost once, why should one have an adavantage jsut because he happense to luckily meet the player he already beat? Also should MKP be in the finals of every MLG by default because he already proved he belongs their? You have to prove yourself every match, not once a tournament.
You throw a bunch of stuff together but it doesn't really stick. Your MKP analogy makes no sense, it's nothing close to the Extended Series rule.
The rule is present to prevent a player from advancing over an opponent who has performed better than them in the tournament, its that simple. Beating players in the loser's bracket does not count as an equatable punishment because those players are supposed to be inferior anyways. You can disagree with the Extended series but your reasoning doesn't make sense.
If you have to prove yourself every match then say I win 2-0 once, you win 2-1 the next time, we both proved ourselves in one match each and I have the better overall record. Why is proving yourself later in the tournament(to a lesser degree since it's 2-1) arbitrarily more worthwhile than someone who proved themselves earlier on?
Nope, actually your reasoning doesn't make sense but if you don't see that I won't bother argueing with you, get back to me when you understand it.
Haha, just to say something like "The rule is present to prevent a player from advancing over an opponent who has performed better than them in the tournament, its that simple." is simply ridiculous. Why do you think they meet again in the losers bracket, because one performened better? Yeah right... But enough, at least one guy shares the same excitement for the rule as the mlg staff.
Edit: Maybe you should think about why afaik no sport in the world ("real" or esports) does this besides mlg.
Instead of being asinine perhaps you could actually follow more comprehensible reasoning than, "You don't see that it's stupid, I won't bother arguing with you".
Their reasoning for why they use it is pretty fucking simple, I don't see what's difficult to grasp. If you think having a run through the loser's bracket is a sufficient punishment for losing that's great, but it does not account for their individual records against each other.
So why does the reasoning in my last paragraph not make sense? What part of choosing which series is more important isn't arbitrary? X player beats Y(2-0), Y player beats X(2-1). X has a better overall score vs Y but Y advances, if you want to consider sets alone then they're even on sets, for all we know X could have beaten all the players that Y beat to get back to that point in the tournament, but instead he's eliminated altogether.
You don't have to agree with the extended series to understand why it's there. But you can continue being a colossal dick instead of providing a reasonable argument, whatever works.
I did not watch the extended series finals between MKP and DRG, because I knew MKP would win, just like every MLG when there is an extended series finals, you know who will win because a deficit of that magnitude is almost impossible to overcome when considering the skill of play. Why MLG insists this ridiculous rule be as enforced as it is, is way beyond me. Why gimp your finals so freekin hard, who the fuck doesn't want to watch a strait up bo7 finals between MKP and DRG. MLG finals are just not very fun to watch, when you know one person is OBV going to win, I mean its fucking MKP, do you seriously think he can loose when hes 2-0 already? Give me a break. I really feel like giving up on MLG @ this point. Sure there is some great pool play, and there can be some great games. However it is all over shadowed by this extended series crap, if nothing else remove extended series for the finals, and give us the games we all fucking came to watch, IN THE FINALS.
Id rather watch grass grow @ this point,. Extended series makes me sick. It's bad for Esports, like really fucking bad. Where is the hype, where is the excitement when the winner is already decided for you before the finals are played. Not going to watch MLG ever again, and I'm sure someone is going to post, and say, well then just don't watch it. And you know what I'm not fucking going to, until extended series is gone for good, GTFO out of my life extended series and never EVER come back. Long live SC2, Long live Esports, DEATH TO EXTENDED SERIES.. End rant.
post note, close by ground entombed is a joke, and whoever thought it was ok to put that map in the rotation should have destructible rocks attached to their legs then fired from a cannon into the ocean, and no one should go save them.
On March 27 2012 02:53 Catatonic wrote: I honestly don't see what is the issue here :l If someone beats someone then meets them again they should have an advantage they already proved they can beat them unlike the other person. Its only fair since the other player has proved nothing.
He already has an advantage, he moves on in the winners bracket... When they meet again both lost once, why should one have an adavantage jsut because he happense to luckily meet the player he already beat? Also should MKP be in the finals of every MLG by default because he already proved he belongs their? You have to prove yourself every match, not once a tournament.
You throw a bunch of stuff together but it doesn't really stick. Your MKP analogy makes no sense, it's nothing close to the Extended Series rule.
The rule is present to prevent a player from advancing over an opponent who has performed better than them in the tournament, its that simple. Beating players in the loser's bracket does not count as an equatable punishment because those players are supposed to be inferior anyways. You can disagree with the Extended series but your reasoning doesn't make sense.
If you have to prove yourself every match then say I win 2-0 once, you win 2-1 the next time, we both proved ourselves in one match each and I have the better overall record. Why is proving yourself later in the tournament(to a lesser degree since it's 2-1) arbitrarily more worthwhile than someone who proved themselves earlier on?
You do realize that every single person except ONE player goes into the Loser's bracket before the Grand Finals right? Saying that the Loser's bracket has inferior players means that the Winner's bracket also has the same inferior players. You don't pick and choose who you face in the Loser's bracket, no one is stupid enough to lose early to get an "easier" road because that road does not exist. You end up playing DOUBLE the amount of people and since no one has a 100% win record in SC2 the more matches you play the higher the chance of you eventually losing is. Hell even Leenock the beast at Providence eventually ended up losing to DRG(after winning 7 straight games) before he got another shot at beating him after another win streak of 6 games in the loser's bracket through Boxer, Slush, MMA, Idra, Huk, MVP. Clearly he was going through those "inferior" loser bracket players and had an easier road. Meanwhile DRG went through Kiwikaki, MMA, and MC.
The punishment for going into the loser's bracket is playing DOUBLE the amount of games than someone who continued winning at that same point. The competition is exactly the same since everyone eventually drops down.
i dont think its unfair, but i dont like it. usually, having to go through the much rougher and more stamina-demanding lower bracket should be punishment enough for having lost a series earlier on in the tournament. this is particularly apparent in the mlg where the finalist who comes from the winners bracket usually had to play only half as many series as his opponent. this was extremely visible in idra vs select. select was able to monster his way through the lower bracket because he was just better than most of his opposition, but once he faced a worthy opponent in idra, he was without a chance because he was just too exhausted to put up a good fight.
It doesn't make any sense to get eliminated from a tournament by an inferior player. Forget all the other players in the brackets. When two players meet and the loser will be eliminated; the better player should move on.
A regular double elimination tournament assumes that the loser 'suffered appropriately'. It assumes that the caliber of players in the losers bracket, combined with the higher volume of games played, is equal to the difficulty for the original winner in the winners bracket.
Extended series doesn't make this assumption. Maybe the original loser got lucky and hits easy opponents in the loser bracket, maybe he gets screwed and faces hard opponents. Whatever the case, when he meets up with the original winner, only the better overall player advances.
look at the FIFA world cup. If you win your group 3-0, and run up against the second place player later in the tournament, you don't start 1 goal ahead. why? because the head to head record is irrelevant: winning games is about advancing and determining seeding. if MKP beats MC in the group stages, then he's already rewarded by having a higher seed than MC. If they play again, it means that MC has had a harder path (since higher seeds get seeded farther into the bracket and get guaranteed money) and therefore has earned the right to play MKP on even ground again.
The only advantage that should exist is that the grand final should give the winner bracket qualifier a flat 1-0 advantage. That, at least, is reasonable, and a decent advantage which accounts for the fact that the other player might have been in the winner bracket right up until the end. It doesn't completely destroy any semblance of competition though, which is what extended series rules do.
If I beat you in the round of 48, I get to go to the next round. You don't. That's what winning means. It doesn't have anything to do with me beating you in particular; it's about me qualifying to the next round. You get to go to the loser bracket, whereas I still have another life, as it were, coupled with a shorter path to the final and a better chance of getting money. That's my reward. Statistically, you're more likely to place lower than me because I've beaten you. If you somehow come up through the open bracket and face me again, then you've beaten the odds through sheer tenacity. You don't need to do it against and me having beaten you before is completely irrelevant because a game in the round of 48 should have absolutely no bearing on the final set of the tournament.
The core argument against extended series is that each match is an isolated event, statistically. Considering this, carrying results between these isolated events creates an opened system, but it doesn't apply to every match, nor does it apply the same way in every match, thereby exacting an outside influence onto the outcome of the match.
It's like saying "These players played once before with a keyboard, but now that they've met again they'll play without a keyboard to see who truly is the better player."
If you make one exception in allowing outside influence into an isolated event, it becomes an endless series of qualifications of determining who the "better" player is.
Guys... Don't forget that this is a pro circuit... It's like like a single big bang tournament. It's a tournament series where every match you win is extremely important. It's a tournament series that you accumulate points in. It's not like a GSL where you have a #1 ranked player that can possibly get knocked down into Code A no problem. No, if you have a crap ton of points, you stay in the lead, even if in 1 particular MLG, you lose and then lose, if you have a lot of points, the next MLG you'll still be ranked highly. Extended Series is just an add-on to this feature. There is a losers bracket, but only because some people really get fucked early. The winners bracket is the "real" bracket, and people going through the winners bracket are playing the real tournament. The losers bracket is basically like Open Bracket #2. The losers bracket is made only to give people second chances. What if DRG made a stupid mistake and his sweaty hands slipped and he exploded all of his banes and ended up losing in a ridiculously stupid fashion? Well then he's going to go through the losers bracket and fight his way back in. Even though he has a second chance though, he is penalized for making such a stupid mistake in a pro tournament. He may be the better player, but he didn't play that way in this particular tournament, so a penalty is applied, and the winners bracket players have an advantage.
That's how the system is supposed to work. That's pretty much how it works. You don't have to like it if you don't want to, but there shouldn't be a reason why you dislike it. Neutral or Like, those are the only real options, because the system is not broken. It works exactly how it should.
On March 27 2012 04:09 Shinta) wrote: Guys... Don't forget that this is a pro circuit... It's like like a single big bang tournament. It's a tournament series where every match you win is extremely important. It's a tournament series that you accumulate points in. It's not like a GSL where you have a #1 ranked player that can possibly get knocked down into Code A no problem. No, if you have a crap ton of points, you stay in the lead, even if in 1 particular MLG, you lose and then lose, if you have a lot of points, the next MLG you'll still be ranked highly. Extended Series is just an add-on to this feature. There is a losers bracket, but only because some people really get fucked early. The winners bracket is the "real" bracket, and people going through the winners bracket are playing the real tournament. The losers bracket is basically like Open Bracket #2. The losers bracket is made only to give people second chances. What if DRG made a stupid mistake and his sweaty hands slipped and he exploded all of his banes and ended up losing in a ridiculously stupid fashion? Well then he's going to go through the losers bracket and fight his way back in. Even though he has a second chance though, he is penalized for making such a stupid mistake in a pro tournament. He may be the better player, but he didn't play that way in this particular tournament, so a penalty is applied, and the winners bracket players have an advantage.
That's how the system is supposed to work. That's pretty much how it works. You don't have to like it if you don't want to, but there shouldn't be a reason why you dislike it. Neutral or Like, those are the only real options, because the system is not broken. It works exactly how it should.
Except it is broken as it's currently implemented. Described in this scenario.
"Pool play goes into the Championship Bracket. So if someone(Player A) wins their Pool games 4-1, whoever they lost to(Player B) can make it all the way to the Grand Finals and the series can start 2-1 or 2-0 with the Winner's Bracket (Player A) starting at a disadvantage. Player B would need to just win three games and win the Championship since it became an Extended Series(Bo9) and the Winner's Bracket player would have only lost one "life" in a double-elimination bracket. Which could've happened if Parting made it to the Grand Finals and Oz managed to meet him there."
That scenario should have thrown red flags up for MLG to remove this rule or rethink the format and when Extended Series applies. Of course, they didn't and continue to plow on through. Just a matter of time before it blows up in their face.
The way I've always viewed double elimination is simply that you are in the tournament until you have lost twice. Say Player A beats Player B. B is now in the losers bracket because he has lost once, player A is in the winners bracket. B wins his game in a losers bracket, A loses his game to player C in the winner's bracket; now A and B will face each other in the loser's bracket. They have both won one game and lost one game, and the loser of their second game will have lost 2 games, which means they should now be out of the tournament. Extended series craps all over that concept and says "the earlier games in the tournament are just under twice as valuable as the games you will play now", which I honestly cannot even begin to fathom how it's even remotely logical.
The only time it makes sense for every game to not simply count as an independent event is in the finals - someone will have had to have gone there from the winner's bracket, which means they have never lost, so they should essentially still have to lose 2 games to go out of the tournament, whereas the one who reaches it from the loser's bracket has already lost a game, so if they lose one more that's curtains for them. In terms of consistency with both the irrational extended series rule and consistency with double elimination, MLG's final was actually very unfair on the winner, they essentially completely voided the fact he's never lost a game and ignored the double elimination logic and ONLY considered the extended series "concept".
EPT
