|
On March 27 2012 09:36 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 08:56 theaxis12 wrote: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.
How did B and C both end up in the winner's bracket? That couldn't happen (at least not in the format used at Columbus).
|
On March 27 2012 09:36 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 08:56 theaxis12 wrote: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.
B and C can't both go to winner's bracket from the same pool.
|
Extended series rule is dumb because it puts performance vs a specific tournament ahead of tournament performance in general. When someone is knocked down to losers they have to win more matches than the person that knocked them down to even face them again. Isn't that enough? If you wanna see which one beats the other 1v1 have a show match.
|
Wow this thread is old lol. Who bumped it?
|
On March 27 2012 10:03 Walnuts wrote:
Wow this thread is old lol. Who bumped it?
Every MLG it gets bumped since every MLG there are several Extended Series towards the end of the tournament that leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. The only time you won't see this thread after an MLG is when Extended Series is gone.
|
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.
I don't know what true double elimination is in your book whether it requires extended series or not but from the context of your post (I think) you are on the side of extended series.
In a standard (non extended series) double elimination format the winner's bracket player would in fact get two matches in which he is allowed to lose one while the loser's bracket player would have to win both matches to win the tournament.
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.
Once again in a standard double elimination format MKP would either start 2-0 in a bo9 or is allowed to lose his first set without losing the finals.
|
On March 27 2012 09:46 jobber123rd wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 09:36 Fubi wrote:On March 27 2012 08:56 theaxis12 wrote: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. How did B and C both end up in the winner's bracket? That couldn't happen (at least not in the format used at Columbus).
Oh my bad, I over simplified it, but you could add in players D and E etc, to that circle (A>B>C>D>E>A) to apply the same logic. My point was, extended series considers you the better player if you have more games won than another, and tries to always have the better player advance. But it works against them because using that very logic, someone you are better than could of won the tournament.
Example: Parting could of very well won this MLG, but Oz would of been the better player according to the extended series rule, he is 2-1 against Parting.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
Moonglade vs. Violet and Leenock vs. Rain just drastically reduced my interest in this MLG. This is just so unfair...
But half a year later Extended Series is still there. And still most people I know think it is a shitty rule. And still players have to watch other players and think "oh I hope B wins because then I start the next round at 0-0, but if A wins this game that I have absolutely no influence on then I will start at 0-2."
|
How the hell is it unfair?
You may not like it but it certainly not unfair!
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On November 04 2012 10:41 lord_nibbler wrote:
How the hell is it unfair?
You may not like it but it certainly not unfair!
Because the loser already had to go thorugh additional games to get back to there so they should be on equal footing again. They both lost the same amount of series so they should be on equal footing again.
|
On November 04 2012 10:45 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 10:41 lord_nibbler wrote:
How the hell is it unfair?
You may not like it but it certainly not unfair! Because the loser already had to go thorugh additional games to get back to there so they should be on equal footing again. They both lost the same amount of series so they should be on equal footing again.
QFT.
|
I like that the guy from winners bracket has and advantage over the guy from losers, but if both face in the losers bracket, i dont like extended series.
|
Extended series rule is great. The best player out of the 2 playing should go on. It is much better to decide that with a bo7 series than 2 bo3 series. Plus we get more games!
|
Hey, it's this thread again.
|
On November 04 2012 11:12 thehepp wrote:
Extended series rule is great. The best player out of the 2 playing should go on. It is much better to decide that with a bo7 series than 2 bo3 series. Plus we get more games!
Your history in MLG should have no bearing. Everything should be started with a flat 0/0. You already had to play more games to get back to a matchup against the same guy, why should you start from behind in the series?
|
You guys. Nobody can be eliminated from an extended series. Jesus.
|
I usually think I'm reasonable but I think the extended series totally SUCKS!
TAKE IT OUT!
|
On November 04 2012 10:45 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 10:41 lord_nibbler wrote:
How the hell is it unfair?
You may not like it but it certainly not unfair! Because the loser already had to go thorugh additional games to get back to there so they should be on equal footing again. They both lost the same amount of series so they should be on equal footing again.
Absolutely agree.
|
Create a poll for what should replace it. I think if it's 2:1, perhaps something with the map choice could be the advantage that the player gets. If it's 2:0 I think the winner should get a 1 point lead.
|
On November 04 2012 10:50 illidanx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 10:45 Fenrax wrote:On November 04 2012 10:41 lord_nibbler wrote:
How the hell is it unfair?
You may not like it but it certainly not unfair! Because the loser already had to go thorugh additional games to get back to there so they should be on equal footing again. They both lost the same amount of series so they should be on equal footing again. QFT.
How the fuk is that unfair ? The loser already lost against the winner and you want to give the loser a 2nd chance ? This one is unfair. THERE must be at least some kind of disadvantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
