EPT
being in the group with Jinro and HuK
MLG 2011 Competition Format Changes - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MaegnisRa
Belgium39 Posts
being in the group with Jinro and HuK | ||
|
Corrik
United States1416 Posts
| ||
|
gm.tOSS
Germany898 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=196798 GJ motbob! | ||
|
Chicane
United States7875 Posts
| ||
|
Blueblister
Sweden321 Posts
On February 27 2011 05:05 Corrik wrote: Generally the top 16 get traveling stipends from MLG. The point system is set up the way it is to encourage players to show up at all events. If you miss a single event, you could drop out of the top 16. This is how MLG secures its "star" players to return. Also, I don't get the hate on extended series. This is an event played over a course of a weekend. The only real difference between an extended series and one that isn't is that you could possibly see more games between the two competitors and that the person who lost before has to win more. The reasoning is that if you have say (this is only an example) Idra play Huk. Let's say Idra wins 2-0. Idra goes on in the Winner's Bracket and Huk drops down into the Loser Bracket. Idra then loses to say Jinro and drops down into the Loser Bracket also. Huk wins out to face Idra in the Loser Bracket. If Huk wins 2-1, he would advance though he technically lost more games to Idra than he won. In a tournament with a loser's bracket, you want to ensure the best player/team advances. Thus, this is why extended series is used. I would think most tournaments with a loser's bracket played over a weekend would use an extended series. All it means is that the series would have started 2-0 for Idra. Idra would have to win 2 games while Huk would have to win 4. The reason Huk is in the hole is his own doing for losing the first games. And, this means more games to be viewed if Huk wins the series. This makes every game mean a lot more to the competitor. Sure, Idra might prefer the first and third map so he could just basically cede the 2nd game to the opponent and win 2-1 to advance. But, with extended series, it would make that decision stupid as he might play that opponent later and he is giving him a free win. It's a good rule, in my opinion. Not true if you read my explanation on page 10. Wins in Winners Bracket already move a competitor further forward than wins in Losers Bracket does (win in WB ≈ two wins in LB). Thats fair! The extended series rule artificially inflates the the importance of the Winners Bracket even more and at the same time undermines the meaning of having a Losers Bracket. In other words: Every game in WB means even more, LB games means even less. If are knocked down to LB you might as well go home already. | ||
|
Luiwtf
England217 Posts
On February 27 2011 05:05 Corrik wrote: Also, I don't get the hate on extended series. This is an event played over a course of a weekend. The only real difference between an extended series and one that isn't is that you could possibly see more games between the two competitors and that the person who lost before has to win more. The thing that you're missing is that both players have already lost. The reasoning is that if you have say (this is only an example) Idra play Huk. Let's say Idra wins 2-0. Idra goes on in the Winner's Bracket and Huk drops down into the Loser Bracket. Idra then loses to say Jinro and drops down into the Loser Bracket also. Huk wins out to face Idra in the Loser Bracket. If Huk wins 2-1, he would advance though he technically lost more games to Idra than he won. In a tournament with a loser's bracket, you want to ensure the best player/team advances. Thus, this is why extended series is used. I would think most tournaments with a loser's bracket played over a weekend would use an extended series. All it means is that the series would have started 2-0 for Idra. Idra would have to win 2 games while Huk would have to win 4. The reason Huk is in the hole is his own doing for losing the first games. And, this means more games to be viewed if Huk wins the series. So you think it's fair that while Huk is penalised because he lost against IdrA previously (in what is essentially a completely different match), IdrA is given an advantage because he lost to someone else, who he may never actually have to face again in the tournament? They're both in the losers bracket, which means both players have lost a game, therefore they should both be equal, previous results shouldn't matter in the tournament (other than the grand final, since one player hasn't actually lost at all). This makes every game mean a lot more to the competitor. Sure, Idra might prefer the first and third map so he could just basically cede the 2nd game to the opponent and win 2-1 to advance. But, with extended series, it would make that decision stupid as he might play that opponent later and he is giving him a free win. It's a good rule, in my opinion. It's a terrible rule, imo. | ||
|
Rah
United States973 Posts
On February 27 2011 15:47 Antoine wrote: extended bo7 or 2xbo3, when you think about it it's kind of unreasonable to ask more of players after they've been playing potentially 20 series over the course of a weekend. it seems anti-climactic but there's no better solution in my eyes. Wouldn't a better solution be to have a best of 5 finals and take the bad extended series rule out of the tournament? Somehow that option is being overlooked even though extended series is causing a lot of problems and limitations here. GSL is pretty competative and well respected without an extended series rule in place, just saying. Use a well organized SC tournament as your model, not Halo. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
- bo3 final - extended series Reason: short on production time. Ugh. I rather have the group stage be best of 1 and get rid of the stupid extended series gimmick and make ro16 and 8 bo3, semis bo5, and finals bo7 with single elimination. | ||
|
shavi
United States127 Posts
Because if series extend through pool play, the finals can eventually lead to the loser bracket winner having an ADVANTAGE over the winner's bracket winner. | ||
|
Huxley
United Kingdom58 Posts
| ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
On February 28 2011 04:21 Huxley wrote: Example Illustrating why Extended Series is flawed make it public yo, can't read. | ||
|
Brown Boy
Canada39 Posts
Another thing that sparked my interest was the debate on the extended series. Most people seem to hate it and there are a few that seem to like it. I personally don't like it because it severely punishes the player who was put into the Losers Bracket. One he has to claw his was back up. Two if he does end up playing against the person who knocked him down he is already at a disadvantage 0-2 or 1-2. Which makes his path to victory even harder. Each series should be independent of one another because the game play will be different because of the maps and even spawning location. Just as an example I'm not sure how many people remember Jinro vs Idra in the most recent GSL. In Set 2 they were close rush distances and Jinro was able to bunker Idra's ramp. Think if something like that happened again in MLG and Idra is thrown into Losers Bracket and later on both of them play and this time on Metalopolis they are cross positions. The game is completely different. Of course I'm a Jinro fan so he's still win JINRO FIGHTING! I agree with the seeding top players. I remember last MLG it was boring watching some of the games where a pro would stomp a noob (a noob in comparison to the pro not to me since I'm a noob too). But with this format new players will have a tough time. Just to become on of the top 4 players in the Open Bracket requires you to win 16 games (if my math is correct) and then another 4 games within your pool play. So that is 20-28 games you have to play to be Seeded 1-20 before you even start the Championship Bracket. That is quite the marathon of games for new people to the MLG. And because of this I can see some top foreign players not coming. Even though they are amazing, dedicated and highly skilled it will be tough to play against a rested Jinro, Idra, Huk, qxc etc etc. Finally I'm just wondering if the map set has been revealed and who will be casting this event. Will it be djWheat and Day[9] again? | ||
|
Rah
United States973 Posts
| ||
|
theherder2
United States538 Posts
On February 28 2011 04:21 Huxley wrote: Example Illustrating why Extended Series is flawed I like this, good depiction of a big flaw with extended series. I understand that the extended series is supposed to consider all matches of two players together as a single event, but in truth thats not how it feels later on at all. Two players playing in Ro1 Winners of a tournament will not have as much pressure as them meeting later on in the Losers Finals. Pretending that it is the same with this rule does not enhance the game at all. If a player knocked down to the losers brackets wins enough games to meet an opponent again, he deserves a REMATCH, not an extended series with losses on his record. | ||
|
Duragon
Canada5 Posts
| ||
|
Duragon
Canada5 Posts
You have to look at this company and realize its has sponsers from brands such as hotpockets and Dr.pepper, you just dont see shit like that at gaming tournaments, hell they managed to put halo players on goddamn dr.pepper bottles. there trying to build a brand with recongizeable faces. Without Seeds, and the vast amount of players in sc2, its possible youd be seeing new faces in the finals every single event. although this isnt necessarily be a bad thing, it creates a much harder enviroment for MLG to create a recognizable brand and player basis | ||
|
Corrik
United States1416 Posts
On February 27 2011 23:21 Luiwtf wrote: The thing that you're missing is that both players have already lost. So you think it's fair that while Huk is penalised because he lost against IdrA previously (in what is essentially a completely different match), IdrA is given an advantage because he lost to someone else, who he may never actually have to face again in the tournament? They're both in the losers bracket, which means both players have lost a game, therefore they should both be equal, previous results shouldn't matter in the tournament (other than the grand final, since one player hasn't actually lost at all). It's a terrible rule, imo. I mean we could argue this all day, but I did not overlook what you said I did in your post. I am fully aware how the Loser's Bracket works. However, it is not penalizing you for being in the Loser's Bracket. It is only penalizing you if you meet the same opponent you lost to earlier on in the tournament. The point of an elimination tournament is for the best player to advance. If you are down 3-2 against someone, you should not advance over them. Just like if it is 3-3 against someone you should not advance over them. They want the best player to move on. This tournament is played over a weekend and basically is a continuous event. It's not like someone has month's to analyze play and adapt new strategies. For the most part, they can't even spend time going over it due to playing constantly. The person who won earlier deserves that advantage. They already defeated this opponent. As having been to MLG events in the past, I tell you this rule can only help the spectator. It makes every game worth more in every part of the tournament and can create more games for the spectator to view. Some of my favorite games in Halo 2 have been in extended series finals where the Loser Bracket team came back to beat the team who beat them earlier in max games. I think everyone should focus their complaining on the Bo3 finals to hopefully get that changed than the extended series. You are comparing this tournament to other tournaments where an extended series would not be practical to justify your complaints on it. = / | ||
|
Rasky
United States406 Posts
| ||
Tachyon
Denmark146 Posts
| ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On February 28 2011 04:21 Huxley wrote: Example Illustrating why Extended Series is flawed Where's the flaw? You've made part 1 of your argument and haven't bothered to make part 2. The folks who have made part 2 of the argument end up at an impasse with the folks in favor of extended series. Either you think the bracket should be read as a whole or you think the slate should be wiped clean every round. A flaw of not having extended series is when Green beats Blue 2-0, and then they meet in the losers bracket and Blue beats Green 2-1, and now Green has been eliminated by someone he's 3-2 against in this competition. If they would've just played a bo5 in the first place, he would've won 3-0 or 3-1. But since they're playing two bo3's, and Blue is lucky enough to win 2/3 of games 3-5, Blue gets to advance. Since you like percentages, Blue has just eliminated Green by winning only 40% of his games against him! So double elim with extended series is saying "either you have to lose twice in bo3's, which can be kinda luck based so that's why we give you a 2nd chance, or you have to lose once in a bo5, which ought to determine fairly well that you're worse than someone else here". But there are several other perspectives to consider as well... it's all been said before on TL. | ||
| ||
