|
On March 27 2012 03:39 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:26 Copenap wrote:On March 27 2012 03:06 Mordiford wrote:On March 27 2012 03:01 Copenap wrote: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.
But let's add a player Z.
X beats Y 2-0.
Y beats Z 2-0
Z beats X 2-0
X faces Y again. Y should be handicapped against X because he lost to him before? So the fact that X lost to Z doesn't get accounted for in this rematch between X and Y even though Y had beaten Z?
If anything, extended series is extremely arbitrary. It doesn't matter if player X is eliminated by player Y even though he has a better record against him. In terms of sets, X lost more than Y and the determining factor is sets, not individual games. By losing to Y in the rematch, X lost 2 sets while Y has only lost one. X is punished for losing twice by getting knocked out. Y is rewarded for losing only once. X is not better than Y and does not deserve to advance anymore than Y.
If you want to keep a history of games to determine the "better" player, then why arbitrarily restrict it to just the games from the current tournament and not from every previous tournament? No one does that because it's ridiculous and players shouldn't be punished for previous results. I would even argue that the more current the results, the more likely it is more relevant. What if player Y improved to a higher skill level than X throughout the span of the time before their rematch? Wouldn't beating player X in the rematch then be even more meaningful than their first match? Why should player X be entitled to an advantage if he is a worse player in this case? There are way too many anomalies like this with extended series.
|
I think extended series is a good idea. Play 3 of your builds to beat a guy, then come back up against him with him totally prepared for those and you completely ignorant about whatever he's thought of to counter it.
It also helps to eliminate chance, lucky build order wins and things, which I like. If he's had to take 3 games from you already those shouldn't get wiped away. It's not about that penalty already being paid because it actually affects the next time you play each other.
That stupid 'oh it gives other guys a disadvantage looks like it's been regurgitated from reddit but it doesn't make sense.
|
On March 27 2012 04:56 alhazrel wrote:
I think extended series is a good idea. Play 3 of your builds to beat a guy, then come back up against him with him totally prepared for those and you completely ignorant about whatever he's thought of to counter it.
It also helps to eliminate chance, lucky build order wins and things, which I like. If he's had to take 3 games from you already those shouldn't get wiped away. It's not about that penalty already being paid because it actually affects the next time you play each other.
That stupid 'oh it gives other guys a disadvantage looks like it's been regurgitated from reddit but it doesn't make sense.
It eliminates chance and lucky build order wins? Explain how please. Who's to say the original winner didn't get 2 lucky build order wins?
|
Calgary26003 Posts
On March 27 2012 04:56 alhazrel wrote:
I think extended series is a good idea. Play 3 of your builds to beat a guy, then come back up against him with him totally prepared for those and you completely ignorant about whatever he's thought of to counter it.
It also helps to eliminate chance, lucky build order wins and things, which I like. If he's had to take 3 games from you already those shouldn't get wiped away. It's not about that penalty already being paid because it actually affects the next time you play each other.
That stupid 'oh it gives other guys a disadvantage looks like it's been regurgitated from reddit but it doesn't make sense.
What if you have a sick build you use to beat Huk, and then MC watches your games. Now you're against MC and he's prepared for your builds. I should at least get a 1-0 advantage for that right?
In fact, no. Knowing when to use your best builds in the tournament is part of tournament play, you don't need special rules to protect against it.
|
On March 27 2012 04:56 alhazrel wrote:
I think extended series is a good idea. Play 3 of your builds to beat a guy, then come back up against him with him totally prepared for those and you completely ignorant about whatever he's thought of to counter it.
It also helps to eliminate chance, lucky build order wins and things, which I like. If he's had to take 3 games from you already those shouldn't get wiped away. It's not about that penalty already being paid because it actually affects the next time you play each other.
That stupid 'oh it gives other guys a disadvantage looks like it's been regurgitated from reddit but it doesn't make sense.
Does this actually make sense?.
Lets take the advantage of Huk and Heart from yesterday, Heart won with two 1-1-1 all ins and lost in a macro game. then in the extended series Heart wins with 2 macro games using different builds from the first Bo3.
Also how does Extended series not giving someone an advantage make sense? if you go into a Bo7 with a 2-0 lead you have a very big advantage simply because you have to win less games than your opponent to win the match. A good example of this is Boxer v Idra at the last MLG where Idra won 2-0 in pool play and they met again and Boxer 'won' 3-2 but because of extended series lost as the actual score was 4-3 to Idra.
There are plenty of ways to run a double Elimination tournament that don't involve Extended series as If the two grand finalists don't meet each other until that match then its a standard B07 now (i think). Also as pointed out in this thread already The grand finalist did not necessarily win all their pool p[lay games and if they meet someone in the grand final who they lost to in pool play but finished ahead of in the pool due to the other games the person from looser's bracket would have an advantage over the winners bracket finalist.
|
We're yet to see a finals in MLG that starts at 0-0... That's just wrong.
|
On March 27 2012 04:56 alhazrel wrote:
I think extended series is a good idea. Play 3 of your builds to beat a guy, then come back up against him with him totally prepared for those and you completely ignorant about whatever he's thought of to counter it.
That is a part of tournament play. You aren't supposed to blindy just do the same builds over and over against the same guy
|
I think extended series should extend further than one tournament. So basically if you beat a player twice you get a free 2 - 0 win if you hit him at the third event.
|
Now that I think about it, you could even make a decent case that you don't need an extra knockout or life even for the winner's bracket winner in the Grand Finals.
If you view the entire point of the tournament to narrow down the field to only two players, who will then play a best of whatever to determine the final winner, then everything up then is just what you have to do to get to the final. If you lost all your matches to the winner's bracket guy, but you fought your through the loser's bracket and managed to win in the final, then you managed to win the most important matches and that's what matters.
Or a comprise -- they play best of 7, if you have an extra 'life' then you start up 1-0.
|
On March 27 2012 05:34 kiy0 wrote:
We're yet to see a finals in MLG that starts at 0-0... That's just wrong.
Actually, Providence started 0-0. Unless you're arguing the person from the winner's bracket should be given no advantage. Which would be just wrong.
|
it baffles me how people are against a rule which makes the player with most maps won win a series.
|
On March 27 2012 05:57 bOneSeven wrote:
it baffles me how people are against a rule which makes the player with most maps won win a series.
Because it's a flawed rule. Read the thread, people point out a ton of flaws with the rule. Don't be ignorant.
|
If MLG got rid of it, it would be unfair, b/c then the winner would start even with the loser finalist.
They would have to make it like winners bracket winner has to win one best of 3 and loser bracket finalist has to win two.
Like if DRG vs MKP started 0-0 it would be unfair to MKP if he lost b/c he would lose with only being eliminated once while DRG would have only been eliminated once as well. It should be true double elimination.
|
On March 27 2012 05:57 bOneSeven wrote:
it baffles me how people are against a rule which makes the player with most maps won win a series.
Because some people who get knocked down to the losers bracket may never have to play an extended series (if the person who beat them got knocked out afterward), while others do. It's just not a consistent rule, and the fact that they are one series away from total elimination should be enough of a punishment for being in the loser's bracket. As for the grand finals, I'd understand if there were some sort of rule that gives the person from the WB a *slight* advantage (although I'd prefer there weren't such a rule), but the extended series rule is completely subject to whether or not the person from the WB has played the person from the LB prior. If not, they don't get any advantage. Advantages and disadvantages shouldn't be doled out just because you happened to have already faced the person earlier.
|
Look I understand MLG wants to make every game count even though they did do consolation games where the points are the same depending on the round you made (go figure). Being seeded a round further is pretty darn good.
There are a lot of players who play differently throughout. Consistency is certainly a bitch. One series they look dominant; the next they have a brain fart.
Late stages of the tournament the players who made it deserve to be there. Much rather see a Bo without the shenanigans because it is a disservice to everyone. Extended series leaves a sour taste in the mouth as soon as it comes into play. It's just not as exciting and there are enough advantages already. Psychologically and fewer games.
|
the reason i dont like the Extended series is playing bad on the first day can cause you to lose on the third day
like if you play someone as the final match of day one, and your tired from all the games and dont paly your best and lose, and that being your only loss, and then you face taht same guy later on even though your now in fine condition you still ahve to play with such a huge handicap
|
Regardless of the "fairness" of such a system, it seems completely baffling to uphold a regulation that 80% of fans thinks should not exist in any form. And I look forward to the semiannual bumping of this thread every time the finals of MLG is extended series, which (at minimum) is a 50% chance due to the nature of the format.
|
On March 27 2012 06:06 ClysmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 05:57 bOneSeven wrote:
it baffles me how people are against a rule which makes the player with most maps won win a series. Because some people who get knocked down to the losers bracket may never have to play an extended series (if the person who beat them got knocked out afterward), while others do. It's just not a consistent rule, and the fact that they are one series away from total elimination should be enough of a punishment for being in the loser's bracket. As for the grand finals, I'd understand if there were some sort of rule that gives the person from the WB a *slight* advantage (although I'd prefer there weren't such a rule), but the extended series rule is completely subject to whether or not the person from the WB has played the person from the LB prior. If not, they don't get any advantage. Advantages and disadvantages shouldn't be doled out just because you happened to have already faced the person earlier.
Probably the best argument I've read thus far. You've converted me.
|
I would really like to see this rule abolished and the top part of the tournment be all Bo7's... or at least Bo5's?
|
On March 27 2012 06:00 Luepert wrote:
If MLG got rid of it, it would be unfair, b/c then the winner would start even with the loser finalist.
They would have to make it like winners bracket winner has to win one best of 3 and loser bracket finalist has to win two.
Like if DRG vs MKP started 0-0 it would be unfair to MKP if he lost b/c he would lose with only being eliminated once while DRG would have only been eliminated once as well. It should be true double elimination.
Their are several different ways of giving the Winners bracket finalist an advantage without giving him a couple of free wins.
For example If it were my decision I would first lower the map pool to 5 maps to give players a chance to focus on a small map pool and allow them to produce better games. Then depending on the circumstance of the meeting and stage of two players meeting who have already met I would do a number of things.
If they meet in the lower Bracket I would (assuming Bo3)
Let the victor select one map to be the first played map which is a big advantage as If it goes to 3 games he will have had the chance to play on two maps of his choosing.
If the meet in the Grand Final (assuming Bo7)
Again let the winner of the last match pick one map to be first played then looser veto a map then winner then looser again. then It is All the maps are played through once starting with the one the winner picked and the map not vetoed then the 3 that were selected by the looser and after those maps have been played go back to the first two maps in the same order.
If the two grand finalists have not played both players veto a map till three have been vetoed then winners bracket winner picks map 1 from those left
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
