|
On March 27 2012 06:12 confusedcrib wrote:
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.
That's the real problem with extended series to me.
It's one thing if it comes up once in a while in the middle/lower ends of the bracket. However, it's almost always an issue at the critical end stages instead of the early on.
At the later points in the tournament the winner ALREADY has an advantage in that they are more rested and haven't played as many series. Take HuK for example. Huk was put into #2 seed, played 3 series, then had to play Heart again who had only played 1 series since pool. Likewise with Socke who played 4 series then faced Huk again.
Even beyond being rested it just sucks at the end of a tournament. 3/4 of the matches to determine 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th were extended series.
|
I think it is fair that the winner has an advantage, but I would like it to be a bo5 with the winner up 1-0, regardless of the result of the previous series. Would make it fair in my opinion.
|
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.
if DRG had been knocked to the losers bracket earlier, and never faced MKP in the winners bracket finals then they would ahve started 0-0
in effect, if you win every game then lose in the winners bracket its worse if you lost for your first game and beat everyone in the losers bracket
looking at it objectively, it would ahve been smarter of DRG to lose the winners semifinal match on purpose so he wouldnt have had to fight MKP at a disadvantage
|
I think its fair to the players but damn ,it causes some terrible finals
|
On March 27 2012 07:47 Forikorder wrote:
looking at it objectively, it would ahve been smarter of DRG to lose the winners semifinal match on purpose so he wouldnt have had to fight MKP at a disadvantage
Surely when he got to the Winner' final, he was assuming he could have beat MKP that time? to then be on the other side of the Extended series in the Grand final?
|
On March 27 2012 07:52 Sylino wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 07:47 Forikorder wrote:
looking at it objectively, it would ahve been smarter of DRG to lose the winners semifinal match on purpose so he wouldnt have had to fight MKP at a disadvantage Surely when he got to the Winner' final, he was assuming he could have beat MKP that time? to then be on the other side of the Extended series in the Grand final?
obviously he couldnt have known at the time it would ahve been better, but any tournament system where what i said could ever be true is jsut a bad tournament system
|
it just completely destroys all the tension of a game if someone goes into a bo7 with a 2-0 lead...
also it is reall really bad for the mindset of the player that is down 0-2 because not only does he know that he lost 0-2 some hours before but also he has to win 4-1 which is really hard if you just lost to a guy 0-2 before ...
this rule is just silly and i don't get why mlg even implemented it
i mean no other tournaments use it so what is the point of adding a stupid and completely unfair rule to a tournament if you are the only one doing it?
|
On March 27 2012 03:06 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +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?
The bolded part is the part that doesn't make sense.
You're right, the player that performed better in the TOURNAMENT should advance, not the player that performed better in their head to head. This means that you must take account the rest of the tournament to judge. Sure, player A might have beat player B before, but what if B had beat C, while A had lost to C? So if A and B meet again, how can you say that A is better than B when B had beat players that A couldn't? You see, there is no way to arbitrarily judge who is better at that point: the fact that they are at the exact same position in the bracket means they have both performed equally as well, therefore, the player that wins the set would be the better player to advance.
|
On March 27 2012 07:47 Forikorder wrote:Show nested quote +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. if DRG had been knocked to the losers bracket earlier, and never faced MKP in the winners bracket finals then they would ahve started 0-0 in effect, if you win every game then lose in the winners bracket its worse if you lost for your first game and beat everyone in the losers bracket looking at it objectively, it would ahve been smarter of DRG to lose the winners semifinal match on purpose so he wouldnt have had to fight MKP at a disadvantage
i don't think he expected to lose to mkp so that would have been silly  but you can just see by that example how stupid this rule really is... it would have been better for drg to lose earlier and than to actually play vs mkp and lose
|
Guys, what about (this is still a huge advantage) instead of giving 2-1 or 2-0 result, how about giving the winner EVERY map choice, that way he gets a big advantage, gets his own maps but he gets no "real" substance.
|
State of the game explained it - The extended series format was used in Halo (back when Starcraft wasn't a part of MLG), so when Starcraft was introduced, Extended series already had an advantage in the format being used because of... extended series.
|
I think the loser having to fight through that whole bracket without being able to lose again is enough of a disadvantage to overcome. Just make the final games a fresh set of BO 5 or whatever its stupid to penalize one player for those 2 games. Two games is a very significant disadvantage when you also factor in players can just randomly lose games from wrong build orders or getting cheesed. At least lower it down to 1 game advantage instead of 2 it just leads to uninteresting series where you know who is most likely going to win before it starts.
Then when the winner beats the guy coming from losers you just say well we know why he won because he had 2 game advantage not because he is better player. Its just stupid on all levels and makes you question human intellect much like daylight savings time.
|
I can see some of their logic but I don't think they thought it through.
They're just picking out one specific thing and trying to "fix" it. There are lots of factors that are involved in winning your set, and just picking one arbitrary factor out isn't fair. Let the set winner be the set winner and that is what you take away from it. This other data could be valuable for breaking ties, but it's just foolish to begin a series with a score 2-1 score because of their previous meeting.
You get an advantage versus a player purely because you happened to meet earlier. You're worse off playing someone you had not met. Why would such a silly condition like this exist like this?
And this is absolutely nothing like the rule that makes the losers bracket winner have to win two sets. That is completely reasonable and fair. This does not make sense.
|
On March 27 2012 08:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Guys, what about (this is still a huge advantage) instead of giving 2-1 or 2-0 result, how about giving the winner EVERY map choice, that way he gets a big advantage, gets his own maps but he gets no "real" substance.
i think every map choice is a bit too much because then theyll jsut choose all the maps that are completely biased towards them and theyll win 90% of the time
i think give them one map veto (or one more map veto if both palyers get to veto) and get to pick the first map is enough of an advantage
|
Extended series rule is good because a player should not be able to go 3-2 in maps vs someone and lose, which can happen w/o extended series:
First BO3 2-0
Second BO3 1-2 = Eliminated
|
On March 27 2012 08:17 theaxis12 wrote:
Extended series rule is good because a player should not be able to go 3-2 in maps vs someone and lose, which can happen w/o extended series:
First BO3 2-0
Second BO3 1-2 = Eliminated
It isn't a showmatch between two players; you need to take the whole tournament into consideration, as that is the whole point of the tournament after all.
Using your example, the fact that they are meeting again means the "winner" lost a set to someone else, whole the "loser" had been winning all of his: so it's more like
First BO3 between A and B: 2-0
First BO3 Between A and C: 0-2
First Bo3 Between B and D: 2-0
Second BO3 between A and B: 1-2 = Eliminated
Sure, the head to head between A and B is 3-2, but A is 0-2 against another player while B is 2-0 against someone else. This is just a simplified example of course, A and B could of went thru many many opponents before meeting again.
So you can't simply go "A will get an advantage just cuz he beat B before" and not look at their performance in the rest of the tournament. The fact that they meet again means they both deserve EQUALLY to be at that exact position, and therefore neither should get an advantage.
|
On March 27 2012 08:28 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 08:17 theaxis12 wrote:
Extended series rule is good because a player should not be able to go 3-2 in maps vs someone and lose, which can happen w/o extended series:
First BO3 2-0
Second BO3 1-2 = Eliminated
It isn't a showmatch between two players; you need to take the whole tournament into consideration, as that is the whole point of the tournament after all. Using your example, the fact that they are meeting again means the "winner" lost a set to someone else, whole the "loser" had been winning all of his: so it's more like First BO3 between A and B: 2-0 First BO3 Between A and C: 0-2 First Bo3 Between B and D: 2-0 Second BO3 between A and B: 1-2 = Eliminated Sure, the head to head between A and B is 3-2, but A is 0-2 against another player while B is 2-0 against someone else. This is just a simplified example of course, A and B could of went thru many many opponents before meeting again. So you can't simply go "A will get an advantage just cuz he beat B before" and not look at their performance in the rest of the tournament. The fact that they meet again means they both deserve EQUALLY to be at that exact position, and therefore neither should get an advantage.
The idea of each round is to have the better player go on, having a better map score from playing that very day indicates that you are the better player no matter who your opponent beat and you lost to in between.
|
On March 27 2012 08:56 theaxis12 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 08:28 Fubi wrote:On March 27 2012 08:17 theaxis12 wrote:
Extended series rule is good because a player should not be able to go 3-2 in maps vs someone and lose, which can happen w/o extended series:
First BO3 2-0
Second BO3 1-2 = Eliminated
It isn't a showmatch between two players; you need to take the whole tournament into consideration, as that is the whole point of the tournament after all. Using your example, the fact that they are meeting again means the "winner" lost a set to someone else, whole the "loser" had been winning all of his: so it's more like First BO3 between A and B: 2-0 First BO3 Between A and C: 0-2 First Bo3 Between B and D: 2-0 Second BO3 between A and B: 1-2 = Eliminated Sure, the head to head between A and B is 3-2, but A is 0-2 against another player while B is 2-0 against someone else. This is just a simplified example of course, A and B could of went thru many many opponents before meeting again. So you can't simply go "A will get an advantage just cuz he beat B before" and not look at their performance in the rest of the tournament. The fact that they meet again means they both deserve EQUALLY to be at that exact position, and therefore neither should get an advantage. The idea of each round is to have the better player go on, having a better map score from playing that very day indicates that you are the better player no matter who your opponent beat and you lost to in between.
but what if one palyer was playing worst on the first day and lost, but when they met on the third day the other player only won becuase he had been playing better on the first day?
in that case the better player on day 3 didnt advance, it was who played better on day one
|
On March 27 2012 08:56 theaxis12 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 08:28 Fubi wrote:On March 27 2012 08:17 theaxis12 wrote:
Extended series rule is good because a player should not be able to go 3-2 in maps vs someone and lose, which can happen w/o extended series:
First BO3 2-0
Second BO3 1-2 = Eliminated
It isn't a showmatch between two players; you need to take the whole tournament into consideration, as that is the whole point of the tournament after all. Using your example, the fact that they are meeting again means the "winner" lost a set to someone else, whole the "loser" had been winning all of his: so it's more like First BO3 between A and B: 2-0 First BO3 Between A and C: 0-2 First Bo3 Between B and D: 2-0 Second BO3 between A and B: 1-2 = Eliminated Sure, the head to head between A and B is 3-2, but A is 0-2 against another player while B is 2-0 against someone else. This is just a simplified example of course, A and B could of went thru many many opponents before meeting again. So you can't simply go "A will get an advantage just cuz he beat B before" and not look at their performance in the rest of the tournament. The fact that they meet again means they both deserve EQUALLY to be at that exact position, and therefore neither should get an advantage. The idea of each round is to have the better player go on, having a better map score from playing that very day indicates that you are the better player no matter who your opponent beat and you lost to in between.
The problem is that you can't consistently use results from earlier in the tournament for everyone in the loser's bracket. If the guy who knocked you to the loser's bracket gets eliminated then you gain an edge for doing nothing, because now you don't have to worry about extended series.
Everyone in the loser's bracket has dropped a match. The disadvantage to dropping a match is you're going to have to play additional matches which will make it harder to get to the finals. I'm not sure it makes sense to then further punish a player when possible if they happen into a rematch by pure coincidence.
It's possible that the extended series rule still makes for a (very slightly) higher chance of the best player winning, but I think most peoples' issue with it is that coincidence is just far too influential.
|
On March 27 2012 08:56 theaxis12 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 08:28 Fubi wrote:On March 27 2012 08:17 theaxis12 wrote:
Extended series rule is good because a player should not be able to go 3-2 in maps vs someone and lose, which can happen w/o extended series:
First BO3 2-0
Second BO3 1-2 = Eliminated
It isn't a showmatch between two players; you need to take the whole tournament into consideration, as that is the whole point of the tournament after all. Using your example, the fact that they are meeting again means the "winner" lost a set to someone else, whole the "loser" had been winning all of his: so it's more like First BO3 between A and B: 2-0 First BO3 Between A and C: 0-2 First Bo3 Between B and D: 2-0 Second BO3 between A and B: 1-2 = Eliminated Sure, the head to head between A and B is 3-2, but A is 0-2 against another player while B is 2-0 against someone else. This is just a simplified example of course, A and B could of went thru many many opponents before meeting again. So you can't simply go "A will get an advantage just cuz he beat B before" and not look at their performance in the rest of the tournament. The fact that they meet again means they both deserve EQUALLY to be at that exact position, and therefore neither should get an advantage. The idea of each round is to have the better player go on, having a better map score from playing that very day indicates that you are the better player no matter who your opponent beat and you lost to in between.
And what is the reasoning behind that logic? It doesn't matter who else you played in the tournament? Isn't the point of the tournament to determine who the best is in the TOURNAMENT? The way you described seems like just a bunch of random individual series of showmatches
Look at this example:
1) B beats C 2-0 in pool play
2) A beats B 2-1 in winner's bracket (sends B to loser's)
3) C beats A 2-0 in next round of winner's (sends A to loser's)
4) A beats B in extended series in loser's (eliminates B)
5) C beats A in extended series (eliminates A)
conclusion: C advances, but B is 2-0 against C. So the whole point of extended series is to have the better player advance, but B is better player relative to C according to extended series, therefore it just contradicted itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
