|
On November 04 2012 13:03 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 12:27 jobber123rd wrote:On November 04 2012 12:10 emythrel wrote:On November 04 2012 11:47 NOOBALOPSE wrote:
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.
MLG already had to creat the most convoluted bracket system ever just to keep their baby while not pissing off the players and fans of sc2 too much. Now you can only have an extended series in group play and the semi-finals of the champ bracket. They did this by completely changing the bracket system so that there are two completely separate brackets of both winners and losers that only ever allow people to play again in the event they both make the semi finals. Instead of doing the simple thing and just removing extended series and having the usual double elim rules (the player from losers has to win 2 bo3's to win the finals) they just made shit more complicated and stupid. Basically, MLG knows that they players and fans don't like the extended series, but its a hallmark of MLG so they won't get rid of it completely so instead they create a more complex system so as to avoid the situation as much as possible. The splitting of the Championship bracket wasn't to protect extended series. It was done in order to make the Grand Final a straight Bo7 always, which arguably makes for a better spectacle than either true DE Grand Final or extended series Grand Final. The NCAA made a similar move for their Division I baseball tournament (College World Series) in 1988, in order to have a final that was more predictable (in terms of length) for spectators and television networks. The reason why the Grand Final couldn't be a straight up Bo7 was because of Extended Series. I'm sorry man, when you as an organization continue to stand up for your "unique" rule but then do everything in your power to change the format of your tournament so that your "unique" rule doesn't have an affect in the most important game in the tournament, it's quite frankly bullshit. If the Grand Finals isn't worthy of an Extended Series match then NOTHING is.
Again, the split was not so that extended series wouldn't have an effect on the Grand Final -- it's so that double elimination would not be a factor. True Double Elimination finals preserve the format of a single DE bracket, but as an event that's supposed to be the climax of the tournament (from a neutral viewer's perspective), the Grand Final is pretty imbalanced (Winners Bracket player has a 75% chance to win, assuming each game is 50/50). I agree that extended series Grand Finals did not do anything to solve this (especially with the rematch carryover rules), but what MLG did here was remove double elimination from the end of tournament altogether, in order to have the familiar and popular single decisive Bo7.
I suppose you could also argue to make the Championship Bracket single elimination in its entirety -- after all, if the Grand Finals isn't worthy of double elimination, then nothing is  . As it is now, it's almost there already, as for 90% of the players, it is single elimination. You'd have to weaken the reward for winning the group somewhat (only one shot in the Champ Bracket instead of two, and only guaranteed Top 8 finish instead of top 6), but with a small change, it could be done.
BTW, since I have some time to kill, here's the equity that the advantaged player has with some of the match formats used to reconcile WB/LB (assuming 50/50 games). I was wondering just how much of an advantage extended series and true DE gave relative to each other (and straight-up matches), because in tournament LR threads, I'd often read posts about how people feel about game advantages, but nothing about the raw impact of the advantage. (Edit: Oops! I hadn't seen Markwerf's post on the previous page!  )
Extended Bo7 rematch starting from 2-0: 81.25%
Extended Bo9 rematch starting from 2-0: 77.34375%
True double elimination Bo3 or Bo5 (LB player must win two series): 75%
Extended Bo7 rematch starting from 2-1: 68.75%
Extended Bo9 rematch starting from 2-1: 65.625%
Bo7 starting from 1-0: 65.625%
Initial Bo3 into extended Bo7 (LB player must win both series): 62.5%
Initial Bo5 into extended Bo9 (LB player must win both series): 60.7421875%
[And of course, a single BoX from 0-0 would be 50%.]
The extended ones have been in effect at MLG at one point or another in the past year (the Bo9 finals rules, for example, were in effect at the Winter Championship). I don't know if the 1-0 format has been used in any major tournaments lately, but it's a suggestion that's brought up here at times.
In any case, it's the switch from round-robin Pools to double-elimination bracket Groups that has brought about all these extended series in this tournament, and restarted the discussion about them here. I have to agree that starting from 0-2 in a Bo7 is a fairly dire position, and IMO too much of a handicap, especially in a situation where both players are in the Losers Bracket (but presently, that can only happen in Groups, where nobody gets eliminated from the tournament). Personally, I'd prefer it if they dropped match history carryover, but used the non-rematch Group Final and Champ Semifinal rules (initial Bo3 (or 5) starting from 0-0, transitioning into "extended" Bo7 (or 9) if the losers bracket player wins) for all Group Finals and Championship Semifinals. There's still a clear advantage to the winners bracket player, but it's not as heavy as true DE, as the WB player cannot advance with fewer map wins.
|
On November 04 2012 22:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
2-0 is just frankly to big of a lead. A more realistic format would be if you win 2-0 in a previous series, you get a 1-0 lead + first map pick, if you get 2-1 you get map pick. The 2-0 is just crushing and imo ruins the game.
except flash was behind 2-1 and came back in one of the most epic series of sc2 ever[/QUOTE]
Hate this thought process... "Look heres a single example!" Remember the DRG finals? Or the other 90% of games that play through extended series and are a waste of time for the viewer?
The 2-0 lead is ridiculous and only a very few exceptions ever pass it noticed.
EDIT: Keeping the first bit because it looks like I was replying to myself, I actually messed up the quote tags
On November 04 2012 23:35 MisterTea wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 22:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
2-0 is just frankly to big of a lead. A more realistic format would be if you win 2-0 in a previous series, you get a 1-0 lead + first map pick, if you get 2-1 you get map pick. The 2-0 is just crushing and imo ruins the game. except flash was behind 2-1 and came back in one of the most epic series of sc2 ever
: P what I was replying too haha
|
Lol, why keep something which fans are 80% against. Its pretty clear its unpopular.
|
Player A loses to Player B 2-0.
Player B loses to Player C 2-0.
Player A meets up with Player B later.
Player B needs to win 2 games and can lose 3. Player A needs to win 4 games and can lose 1. How is that fair? They both lost 1 set already but now because they met before Player B needs to lose 2 additional sets while Player A needs to only lose 1 (aka in a double elimination format B needs to be eliminated 3 times instead of just twice).
It's a massive advantage that doesn't belong in a double elimination format. The whole point of the double elimination format is that it prevents the better player from getting knocked out due to BO loses or one or two mistakes. The extended series does nothing to further that purpose.
Granted when someone who hasn't lost at all meets up with someone who has then the reverse applies. The winner hasn't lost a single set, so should have an advantage going into the games since the other person has. However that advantage could be something like they get to pick the maps, or start 1-0 up, ignore match history and make the winner only have to win one of two best of 3s, or whatever is deemded the best solution (how about getting the players to provide suggestions and vote on them so that the players themselves decide what's fair?).
|
On a funnier note, anyone watching Dallas right now for Rain vs Naniwa see Naniwa struggling to drink the Redbull drink? he was sipping, looking at camera, sipping, looking at camera and then took a chug and cringed. I laughed a good bit, it almost looked like when someone drinks straight vodka: D funny.
|
On November 05 2012 02:07 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On a funnier note, anyone watching Dallas right now for Rain vs Naniwa see Naniwa struggling to drink the Redbull drink? he was sipping, looking at camera, sipping, looking at camera and then took a chug and cringed. I laughed a good bit, it almost looked like when someone drinks straight vodka: D funny.
Yes I agree, I think Extended series are unfair as well.
|
My 2 cents.
Since MLG wants Double Elim, I think an 'extended series' of sorts is needed in the 'finals'. Obviously, we wouldn't have extended series with out double elim.
Why?
Because the point is so that the player from the WB is not disadvantaged.
Yes, the losers bracket player had to play more game(s), but that is the essence of a double elim competition. Ie. if a player makes a mistake they can make up for it.
For example, Player X beats Player Y in the WB final, 2-0. Player Y comes back to make it to the grand final (he got a 2nd chance). So, imo, Player X should have some sort of an advantage in the final. If the WB player did not get an advantage and the grand final were, again, a BO3 and Player Y won 2-1; I (and player X) would be upset because X has won 3 games overall and Y has only won 2, yet Y wins.
I like the idea of using the previous score and the game becoming a BO7 with that score (Player X already earned those wins). So, Player X would start 2-0 in the BO7. This way you cannot have the previously stayed problem of the player winning more games, overall, and still lose. The WB player will get an advantage of sorts (2nd chance) and he will keep the wins he already earned.
However, the way MLG does their semifinal rule - a BO3, if LB player wins then it's another BO7 - I don't like and gives too many games. If the player from the LB wins the initial BO3, then why not do as I say and keep the score but make it a BO7. The WB player is getting a 2nd chance, like the LB player did, and the LB player gets to keep the victories he already earned.
|
You know what's honestly WAY worse than extended series? This awful obnoxious fucking music they\re playing in their LONG wait times. Holy fucking music, kill me now. It's like something you'd hear on an old episode of Friends. Honestly mute it everytime action stops so I don't get some house/techno/pop shit mix thing that is hard enough to describe let alone listen to.
|
On November 05 2012 02:36 Prplppleatr wrote:
My 2 cents.
Since MLG wants Double Elim, I think an 'extended series' of sorts is needed in the 'finals'. Obviously, we wouldn't have extended series with out double elim.
Why?
Because the point is so that the player from the WB is not disadvantaged.
Yes, the losers bracket player had to play more game(s), but that is the essence of a double elim competition. Ie. if a player makes a mistake they can make up for it.
For example, Player X beats Player Y in the WB final, 2-0. Player Y comes back to make it to the grand final (he got a 2nd chance). So, imo, Player X should have some sort of an advantage in the final. If the WB player did not get an advantage and the grand final were, again, a BO3 and Player Y won 2-1; I (and player X) would be upset because X has won 3 games overall and Y has only won 2, yet Y wins.
I like the idea of using the previous score and the game becoming a BO7 with that score (Player X already earned those wins). So, Player X would start 2-0 in the BO7. This way you cannot have the previously stayed problem of the player winning more games, overall, and still lose. The WB player will get an advantage of sorts (2nd chance) and he will keep the wins he already earned.
However, the way MLG does their semifinal rule - a BO3, if LB player wins then it's another BO7 - I don't like and gives too many games. If the player from the LB wins the initial BO3, then why not do as I say and keep the score but make it a BO7. The WB player is getting a 2nd chance, like the LB player did, and the LB player gets to keep the victories he already earned.
That is the current MLG rule for non-rematch Group Finals and Championship Semifinals. They don't reset the score for the BO7 -- they continue from where the BO3 ended.
3. If the Players scheduled to play each other in a Group Final Match or a Championship Bracket Semifinal Match have not yet played against each other in the specific Stage of the Event, an initial Best of 3 Games Match must be played. If the Player who came from the Winners Bracket wins the initial Match, they will advance. If the Player who came from the Losers Bracket wins the initial Match, the Match will expand to a Best of 7, include the initial Match, and pick up where that Match left off. For example, if the Losers Bracket Player beat the Winners Bracket Player 2 Games to 0 in the initial Match, the Best of 7 will resume with Game 3 and the Losers Bracket Player leading 2 Games to 0. The winner of a Group Play Final or Championship Bracket Semifinal Best of 7 will advance.
Source
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 05 2012 03:02 jobber123rd wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 02:36 Prplppleatr wrote:
My 2 cents.
Since MLG wants Double Elim, I think an 'extended series' of sorts is needed in the 'finals'. Obviously, we wouldn't have extended series with out double elim.
Why?
Because the point is so that the player from the WB is not disadvantaged.
Yes, the losers bracket player had to play more game(s), but that is the essence of a double elim competition. Ie. if a player makes a mistake they can make up for it.
For example, Player X beats Player Y in the WB final, 2-0. Player Y comes back to make it to the grand final (he got a 2nd chance). So, imo, Player X should have some sort of an advantage in the final. If the WB player did not get an advantage and the grand final were, again, a BO3 and Player Y won 2-1; I (and player X) would be upset because X has won 3 games overall and Y has only won 2, yet Y wins.
I like the idea of using the previous score and the game becoming a BO7 with that score (Player X already earned those wins). So, Player X would start 2-0 in the BO7. This way you cannot have the previously stayed problem of the player winning more games, overall, and still lose. The WB player will get an advantage of sorts (2nd chance) and he will keep the wins he already earned.
However, the way MLG does their semifinal rule - a BO3, if LB player wins then it's another BO7 - I don't like and gives too many games. If the player from the LB wins the initial BO3, then why not do as I say and keep the score but make it a BO7. The WB player is getting a 2nd chance, like the LB player did, and the LB player gets to keep the victories he already earned. That is the current MLG rule for non-rematch Group Finals and Championship Semifinals. They don't reset the score for the BO7 -- they continue from where the BO3 ended. Show nested quote +
3. If the Players scheduled to play each other in a Group Final Match or a Championship Bracket Semifinal Match have not yet played against each other in the specific Stage of the Event, an initial Best of 3 Games Match must be played. If the Player who came from the Winners Bracket wins the initial Match, they will advance. If the Player who came from the Losers Bracket wins the initial Match, the Match will expand to a Best of 7, include the initial Match, and pick up where that Match left off. For example, if the Losers Bracket Player beat the Winners Bracket Player 2 Games to 0 in the initial Match, the Best of 7 will resume with Game 3 and the Losers Bracket Player leading 2 Games to 0. The winner of a Group Play Final or Championship Bracket Semifinal Best of 7 will advance.
Source
Ah, I misread it. So I really do agree 
|
I really don't understand MLG, it's so weird, it's almost like they know extended series is stupid, but just won't let go so they won't admit that they have been making a mistake for 2 years now. Not to mention that they are the only tournament in the world that has it as a rule, just mind boggling.
They try to rearrange brackets so that finals are rigged to make it impossible for extended series to occur, wile gimping semifinals terribly in an overwhelming chance for it to be unfair and produce bad games with a more rested player having an advantage. It's like they were praying for the person from the losers bracket originally to win the lb finals so there won't be extended, but it backfired terribly by pitting Bomber vs Leenock (2-0 advantage for Leenock) and Flash vs Life (again 2-0 advantage for Flash).
I can only try to imagine how will 15-yo Life cope with having to play a guy that destroyed him 2 hours ago again, but now with 0-2 disadvantage.
This MLG was amazing, and the stupidity of people who insist on having extended series in are doing they're best to ruin it.
|
The good thing about extended series is that you can't be knocked out by someone you have a winning record against, which makes complete intuitive sense. That being said, starting down 0-2 would suck terribly. I'm not sure where the balance between the two lies, but I would love to see it.
|
this system is so lame. flash won 2 games. then another 2. then life won 4. thats 4-4. life advances. whack...
|
On November 05 2012 07:49 boomudead1 wrote:
this system is so lame. flash won 2 games. then another 2. then life won 4. thats 4-4. life advances. whack...
What? Flash went 2 4 vs life they only played 6 games this mlg. He started with a 2 0 lead in the series he lost.
|
On November 05 2012 07:52 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 07:49 boomudead1 wrote:
this system is so lame. flash won 2 games. then another 2. then life won 4. thats 4-4. life advances. whack... What? Flash went 2 4 vs life they only played 6 games this mlg. He started with a 2 0 lead in the series he lost.
Some people are not too bright, but all this confusion about the format should be some warning about why the MLG format just stinks. People showing up late for games is also an indirect results of it's overly complicated structure.
|
On November 04 2012 13:25 silent_owl wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 11:53 RaiZ wrote:On November 04 2012 10:50 illidanx wrote: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. Yes and that disadvantage is the fact that the loser already had to play ADDITIONAL MATCHES!
So what ? Don't lose. Be glad you aren't eliminated already past the pool's stage (exception being the open bracket since they have no pool's phase) because i know fuk tons of tournaments where there are only a single elimination bracket. Seriously it's like hearing newbies complaining about ladder's anxiety comapred to masters / gm where they simply don't give a flying fuck. I don't know why I'm still reading this thread lol.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
